I just don't think the pendulum swings that hard in the US, at least never to the left that much. Since Reagan, we've been having pretty conservative administrations in foreign policymaking at the very least.
I'm so fucking terrifying. Remember on the avengers when Black Widow said that the Hulk avoided fights because he knew he would win? That's me. Where's the glory? I want to be weak.
The difference between good philosophy and bad philosophy. The good requires two, three, or more readings to understand. The bad you can absorb at double speed.
Yeah, if I was rich and could afford to allocate time just to studying philosophy, that would certainly be true. But that's not the case.
You can listen as many times as you want at double the speed. It's hard at first, but ultimately if you persist, you get used to it. Right now things at normal speed seem so slow to me. I'm like how the hell can anyone listen to this lecture at normal speed?! :s
Reply to jamalrob No I don't think so. When I'm talking to someone there's the paying attention to body language, subtle cues, etc. that's going on in my mind, so only a small part of attention goes to what they're actually saying.
I think of Chomsky (going back several pages) with great fondness. I agree with Mongrel, he did a fine thing in opposing behaviourism, and his breakthroughs in linguistics were profound. I used an excellent paper of his from the 1990's on science and language only the other month. He's lived long enough for his revolution in linguistics to face other revolutions against it, but that's the way it goes with longevity. He maintains a steady if cranky dissenting political view, even though I recall that he questioned other people taking warmongers' funding but not his own at MIT: what the heck, it makes him human that he's like this.
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 07, 2017 at 10:42#755360 likes
Yeah, if I was rich and could afford to allocate time just to studying philosophy, that would certainly be true. But that's not the case.
Do you mean that if you were rich you could take the time to study some good philosophy, but since you're not, you settle for bad philosophy? Get the job done quick instead of right?
If that's the aim of the lawsuit then it seems it isn't that stupid...
Despite the press' complaints that Trump is anti First Amendment for his attacks of the press, he's actually not. He's an extreme example of free speech, saying whatever he wants whenever he wants. Complain that he's a runaway train of buffoonery sure, but not that he's restraining anyone's right to blab.
Despite the press' complaints that Trump is anti First Amendment for his attacks of the press, he's actually not. He's an extreme example of free speech, saying whatever he wants whenever he wants. Complain that he's a runaway train of buffoonery sure, but not that he's restraining anyone's right to blab.
Nobody cares about the facts. Politics is about appearances. If it wasn't, Trump would never have won. So, I'll repeat, it doesn't seem that stupid... :P
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 07, 2017 at 11:08#755460 likes
Did you know you could get high huffing the vapor from whipped cream cans? Haven't tried it myself.
Nitrous Oxide...used it for an hour myself last week while having oral surgery.
LOVE me some Nitrous! I just wish I could have a to go bag of the stuff for when the Novocain wears off.
Reply to Michael A reporter for the Washington Times said an associate of Comey's said that Trump said to Comey that Comey should consider jailing journalists who leak information. Assuming the hearsay upon hearsay proves to be true, I would not consider a suggestion of arrest to amount to a violation of free speech or the right to a free press. Is there really a journalist out there who didn't report something because he heard about what Trump supposedly told to Comey? If so, what's his name?
It seems fairly ridiculous to argue that the press isn't free, considering everything that could be said about Trump has been said about Trump. I'd also point out that there's nothing the press loves to talk more about than the press because it's all about them I guess.
Nobody cares about the facts. Politics is about appearances. If it wasn't, Trump would never have won. So, I'll repeat, it doesn't seem that stupid... :P
Meh, Trump won because the Democrats wheeled out an ancient insider who effectively blocked all comers and figured out how to lose. No one was duped.
Assuming the hearsay upon hearsay proves to be true, I would not consider a suggestion of arrest to amount to a violation of free speech or the right to a free press.
I'm not saying that a suggestion of arrest amounts to a violation of the First Amendment. I'm saying that a suggestion of arrest amounts to Trump showing himself to be against the First Amendment.
Reply to Michael No it doesn't. It displays a robust sense of free speech, where you can say whatever the hell you want whenever you feel like saying it. Talk is cheap.
No it doesn't. It displays a robust sense of free speech, where you can say whatever the hell you want whenever you feel like saying it. Talk is cheap.
If I say "the First Amendment should be abolished" then I'm displaying a robust sense of free speech and showing myself to be against the First Amendment, so what you say above is a non sequitur.
If Trump wants journalists to be jailed for publishing classified information then he opposes the First Amendment. That the First Amendment allows him to say such things doesn't change this fact.
If Trump wants journalists to be jailed for publishing classified information then he opposes the First Amendment. That the First Amendment allows him to say such things doesn't change this fact.
So is it illegal to speak against the Constitution? :s
If Trump wants journalists to be jailed for publishing classified information then he opposes the First Amendment.
I'd be a little surprised if he knows there is such a thing as a First Amendment. If he could bull-dog his way to suppressing free speech, of course he'd do it. He just isn't in a position to. The president of the USA doesn't really have much power (except during war).
Reply to Benkei The GOP had many better candidates. I voted for Kasich, the most moderate of the group. At least the Republicans had a democratic process. The problem was that the reasonable candidates split up the reasonable people's vote and the crazy outlier gathered up the largest number of votes and rung up primary votes until he outlasted the crowd.
I'm in favor of some sort of super-delegate system that will give the party some control over who their candidate is while also preserving the democratic nature of the system. The underreported issue during the primary was how Clinton was anointed, having locked down the nomination before it began. With all the clamoring about how undemocratic US presidential elections are from the left, they were remarkably silent with how they were trying to push a president through without the people really having a choice. Thank the good Lord for Trump having preserved the people's voice. A joke.
This environmentalist, who believes climate change is real and is caused by human activity (I'm not lobbing up a denier here), claims that the Paris agreement was a bad idea and Trump was right to withdraw. He does cringe in having to agree with Trump, by the way. http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/02/bjorn-lomborg-paris-climate-accord
Reason (the website) is a Libertarian site, which I acknowledge for full disclosure.
His point is that the trillions spent under the Accord will offer only minimal reductions in greenhouse gases. He argues the economic impact of allowing climate change to continue without the reductions set out in the Accord will be minimal as well. That is, the Accord will give us very little and it will cost very much.
He suggests that the trillions would be better spent on research and development for greener energies as opposed to the minimal effect from this Accord. It's not that Trump has suggested a reallocation of the money that will be saved from not being a part of the agreement, but it does seem that a reasonable approach is the one suggested by the environmentalist in the article. He also has a very European name (Bjorn), so he should gain credibility on this board from that. I suspect Bjorn wears skinny jeans and tight shirts with all sorts of zippers like any self-respecting European.
I wear Bermuda shorts over my knees, high white socks, white tennis shoes, and a baseball cap because I'm American damn it.
If I say "the First Amendment should be abolished" then I'm displaying a robust sense of free speech and showing myself to be against the First Amendment, so what you say above is a non sequitur.
If Trump wants journalists to be jailed for publishing classified information then he opposes the First Amendment. That the First Amendment allows him to say such things doesn't change this fact.
I think even Trump realizes that he can't make up laws. So, if he suggested that Comey arrest those who report on illegally gotten information, he would expect that Comey would have to charge a violation of an actual law on the books. It sounds like Trump was asking what could be done about what he thought was illegal, but I don't think he was actually advocating for Comey to just sort of make up a law and then enforce it, and I doubt that Trump also was considering the Constitutional implications if such a law existed.
I hope you do. I want to see you on the news next to a lawyer with a ponytail and an earring. If I'm on the jury, I'd vote to acquit because you're pretty cool.
It's only a matter of time before a thorough review of a person's internet search history is a part of jury selection. Then as soon as they see "Philosophy Forum" in your searches- immediate disqualification! :)
Reply to Hanover I think we should invest in genetic engineering to allow humans to grow plants out of their heads instead of hair. People could just go outside and stand around if they need extra energy.
The GOP had many better candidates. I voted for Kasich, the most moderate of the group. At least the Republicans had a democratic process. The problem was that the reasonable candidates split up the reasonable people's vote and the crazy outlier gathered up the largest number of votes and rung up primary votes until he outlasted the crowd.
I'm in favor of some sort of super-delegate system that will give the party some control over who their candidate is while also preserving the democratic nature of the system. The underreported issue during the primary was how Clinton was anointed, having locked down the nomination before it began. With all the clamoring about how undemocratic US presidential elections are from the left, they were remarkably silent with how they were trying to push a president through without the people really having a choice. Thank the good Lord for Trump having preserved the people's voice. A joke.
You keep dragging the Democrats in to this as if that has any bearing on my point that politics in general (that includes Democrats) is about appearances.
Plus, all these states, companies, universities, and countries that are now vowing to uphold the Paris Accord agreements or even exceed them only prove its uselessness. If you're going to uphold it voluntarily and locally anyway, the accord was never necessary in the first place.
Maybe Trump's trying to be like Lelouch from Code Geass, though I doubt anyone will get that anime reference.
You keep dragging the Democrats in to this as if that has any bearing on my point that politics in general (that includes Democrats) is about appearances.
I agree that politics is about appearances. So there's no more to be said about that.
You asked something about whether the GOP had better candidates and so I offered up some wisdom regarding that.
I think we should invest in genetic engineering to allow humans to grow plants out of their heads instead of hair. People could just go outside and stand around if they need extra energy.
The underreported issue during the primary was how Clinton was anointed, having locked down the nomination before it began.
Oh, come on! You know that both D and R campaigns are often decided before the convention. If there is no heir apparent, and if no prospective candidate had succeeded in lining up potential delegates, then you get an open contest, such as the Republicans had. We haven't seen a wide open convention since... what, Barry Goldwater in 64 (Goldwater was a great speaker)?
That Clinton was anointed wasn't really news, was it? The degree to which party bosses at the national and state levels might have hobbled Sanders' candidacy was probably not a story with legs -- just too tedious to go into. I much preferred Sanders over Clinton.
Do you guys and gals think that government intervention is needed to guide the economy towards renewables or would that have happened without any government directive/support?
It's essentially a question as to whether the free market and invisible hand are really that smart?
Bullshit. You don't have to feed and brush the horses, refill their water trough, and shovel shit out the door. You don't have to take a relatively slow street car into work (or worse, ride a horse). You don't have to wear a suit in a dimly lit, hot, un-air conditioned office with windows open and no screens. You don't have to wait for a call while the operator puts it through. You don't have to send faxes because you have to write out the document, put it into an envelope, address it, find a delivery boy out front, pay him, and hope he doesn't die on the way to the delivery address. You don't have to take a horse-drawn cab across town to see somebody. If you want to travel, you don't have to take a boat which might ram an iceberg and sink. Trains took 3 or 4 days to get from New York to San Francisco. If you got sick you probably would die (leaving a lot of paper work unprocessed). If you wanted to check the news, you had to actually hold the inky crinkly paper thing in your hands, and read it by dim light. Stock quotes came out of your ticker-tape printer and piled up on the floor. If you wanted to know what SC Johnson was selling for, you had to look through the tape to find it.
Now, in 1917 things had gotten somewhat better, but not immensely so. You might be able to take a subway now. (They were crowded from the first day of operation onward.) Speaking of RAID, there wasn't any. You could sprinkle arsenic powder on the floor and hope that kept the cockroaches and other vermin in check. Probably didn't.
Plus, in 1917 there was a war on in Europe which killed all sorts of people for no good reason.
Yeah, all these things meant life went much slower, simply because you couldn't do all those things you list right there in a single day. So you didn't expect to get all of them done in a single day. Trains took 3 or 4 days as you say. Great! That means there's less squished in those 3-4 days than there would be when you can take a plane and get there in a few hours. Stock quotes, etc. information traveled slow!! That means that it was easier to be a stock trader. Now, goodluck being stuck to your computer day-in day-out, streaming news at 2x speed, and watching your holdings. There's A TON of more information you have to know today. That's exactly my point, so I have no clue why you're calling bullshit Cranky :P
I'm just going to openly say that I was happy when Trump got elected. The reason why is because deep down I hoped that the American public would become aware how sick the current state of our democracy is today and in response to that/this situation some public anger and resentment would facilitate change in a positive manner. At the very least there's some order being imposed via the only branch that I support within the government (the Senate) on all the other defunct one's (exempting the judicial branch).
It's sad that the FBI has become a cuck to the president, as is becoming so obvious now. And, as always deep government has all the impunity in the world since the President will take the downfall in the end if things turn ugly.
I think I was responding to the idea that "the good old days" of the late 19th century were somehow easier. They weren't. People had just as many aggravations to put up with (like crossing a street without getting horse shit all over one's shoes).
Reply to Question "The worse it gets the better it gets" is a leftist hope that never panned out. Gradual devolution is something that people get used to. Trump doesn't amount to a radical change--which isn't to say he is doing us any good. He's cruder and less competent than most of his predecessors.
The history of the FBI is extremely mixed. At various times the FBI has been in a position to blackmail the presidency (they observed and recorded). The FBI has engaged in highly undemocratic activity--the Cointelpro program, for instance, which worked toward destroying the radical left). J. Edgar Hoover loathed Martin Luther King, for example.
The history of the FBI is extremely mixed. At various times the FBI has been in a position to blackmail the presidency (they observed and recorded). The FBI has engaged in highly undemocratic activity--the Cointelpro program, for instance, which worked toward destroying the radical left). J. Edgar Hoover loathed Martin Luther King, for example.
I have a lot of respect for the FBI, much much more than the current deep state organizations like the CIA and NSA. It's my opinion that what power the FBI once had has been transferred to the CIA and NSA; but, the FBI has always been guided by the pursuit of truth and transparency, something lacking in abundance in our modern day government.
Everything seems to be going nowadays, in regards to policymaking and politics, behind closed doors and in closed sessions. When the FBI was around, politicians were scared to make policies in closed sessions due to the FBI exposing whatever BS was going on behind closed doors.
I'd rather have a fearful and subverted politician by the FBI than a secretive and sneaky politician.
Reply to Bitter Crank Well I didn't mean it like that. I agree life is a lot more comfortable today, but also a lot more stressful (more to do in less time).
Reply to Hanover I do admire Bjorn Lomborg, if only because he is the only cool statistician on the planet. Can there even be such a thing?
Still, an Accord in Paris is better than no accord. isn't this like democracy? It's a terrible idea except for all the others, which are worse? Trump says he's going to renegotiate, only so far there's noone to renegotiate with.
I said before that the fear that the prey feels and the adrenaline that the predator does are qualitatively identical. Someone like me, needs to interpret it as fear.
Though, everyone does indeed let me get away with everything, and are almost always way way too afraid to confront me about anything.
An ambiguous grin. You've either deleted a post of mine or you've seen Code Geass before.
I've never seen Code Geass before, but it looks entertaining. The question is, is it as entertaining as deleting your posts? Actually, do you know what's actually more entertaining than deleting your posts? The actual paranoia it actually invokes in you.
Reply to Sapientia Nice. I've only seen Naruto of those you listed, but I have a decently sized collection. My favorites are probably Gankutsuou, Texhnolyze, and Samurai Champloo off of the top of my head.
Nice. I've only seen Naruto of those you listed, but I have a decently sized collection. My favorites are probably Gankutsuou, Texhnolyze, and Samurai Champloo off of the top of my head.
Samurai Champloo rings a bell. Yep, after googling, I definitely recall that I got several episodes in a long time ago. Good anime.
Do you guys and gals think that government intervention is needed to guide the economy towards renewables or would that have happened without any government directive/support?
The former. Otherwise it would have had a weaker impact.
It's essentially a question as to whether the free market and invisible hand are really that smart?
I think it's more a matter of ethics than intelligence. It's about how that intelligence is put to use - whether altruistically or out of self-interest. Also relevant are short-term vs. long-term priorities.
The former. Otherwise it would have had a weaker impact.
It's a strongly held belief or even 'doctrine' in economics (Western economics) that the market is the most efficient agent at allocating resources, with green energy and the like being the focus of the discussion. This is a mantra I'm trying to figure if it is indeed an "absolute truth". It's been the mantra of neo-liberalism for the past 40 years, too, and that isn't really a compliment.
While, a free market might be the most efficient agent in allocating and managing resources (God, there is that mantra again), it might not have the foresight humans have, in regards to climate change for example.
Just wondering what other members think about the all great and amazing invisible hand?
In regards to my previous post, I often view China as an exemption to the doctrine of neo-liberalism. Mercantilist states can be effective and prosperous.
China has done what no other nation has achieved in history in terms of speed of growth and the reduction of poverty. While, yes, there are horrific examples of exploitation occurring and citizens considering taking their lives when signing some binding contract with some company to be paid a certain amount every month for the time and work they provide; however, the number of people lifted from poverty and utter destitute has been in the least, incredible.
I mean, visit any post-Soviet country and ask their citizens (appropriate age group) if it was better back when communism was the socio-economic dominant theory of governance or free market liberalism?
Reply to Question Someone like Owen Jones could answer that question much better than I could. He has written quite a lot about that kind of thing, like in his book [I]The Establishment: And How They Get Away With It[/I].
Is that like a sequel? I think I may have watched a movie of it or something if that exists, but didn't know there was a sequel.
Kind of, but it's too complicated to call it a sequel. It's on a different timeline, and is situated some time before the end of the first anime, if I recall correctly, it's not yet anything other than a videogame, as far as I'm aware, although from what I gather it's more like an interactive virtual manga than a typical videogame.
I read through the article, but here's the thing. Yes Marx was right in diagnosing capitalism, but the faults don't lie with capitalism ultimately, but with human nature. Human nature is so constituted to generate a natural tendency towards sin, weakness and death. If wealth were suddenly divided equally between every human being on Earth, it would soon end up in the hands of the few once again. It's just natural. Most people would not have the discipline, concentration and effort required to maintain and grow their wealth, and they would squander it.
Just look at it! Most people get mortgages for bigger and bigger houses, they want to buy fancy cars, etc. That's the truth - they're doing it with their own hands. Like - there are some people in my village who bought new cars, and they don't even have a driving license! Isn't that stupidity now?
Weakness - and this means moral weakness - destroys most people. They want to show off - ahh I have a nice, fast, powerful car - the neighbour respects me, etc. etc. - but the dough flows out of your wallet! GREED - the average man is very greedy. LUST - inability to restrain aggressive desires. Lack of self-mastery - causing one to go like a horse after the carrot that they'll never catch. Really it's all about peer pressure - all about seeking to do things to fit in and make others like you. That's the cause of weakness. If one renounced everything - suddenly one would regain absolute control.
So nothing can be done! Nothing can change human nature at a large scale. We're talking now, but in 200 years people will be talking just as emptily as we're now talking, cause nothing will change. Sure - we'll have a different economic system, so what? Wealth (and power) will once again become concentrated in the hands of the few. There's absolutely nothing that can be done. This is the state of nature.
I mean, visit any post-Soviet country and ask their citizens (appropriate age group) if it was better back when communism was the socio-economic dominant theory of governance or free market liberalism?
The answer will undoubtedly be the latter.
Wrong. Very wrong. Most will answer that communism was better, unfortunately. It's the young that hate communism (generally), and the old that love it. Having a secure job and being equally poor was enough to buy their love. Equally poor - again, for most, the state of others matters more than their own state. It's the envy, the greed, the jealousy that destroys them.
Surely we're moving into a period where everyone gets paid an amount by the state, equivalent to a wage and robots do all the work? It doesn't matter if they squander it, they would be encouraged to do something enjoyable with it instead.
Surely we're moving into a period where everyone gets paid an amount by the state, equivalent to a wage and robots do all the work? It doesn't matter if they squander it, they would be encouraged to do something enjoyable with it instead.
Yeah yeah, in your dreams maybe. Even in 1000 years the poor African will get no pay from the state. The Western world seems more and more incapable of understanding how the rest of the world lives.
Very Machiavellian of you. I know there are gaping holes in the theory when one looks to apply it to the world as it is now. But it is an idea I hear more and more now.
Reply to Hanover I like Lomborg. As you'd expect, he's not popular with the Green movement, who have dedicated a lot of time to trashing his work, regarding him as "hugely influential in providing cover to politicians, climate-change deniers, and corporations that don't want any part of controls on greenhouse emissions".
Very Machiavellian of you. I know there are gaping holes in the theory when one looks to apply it to the world as it is now. But it is an idea I hear more and more now.
Let's see - you're paying the state taxes, and the state pays you what you paid them - niiiiice!
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 08, 2017 at 12:26#758010 likes
Oooh for those of us who eat, breathe and LOVE politics, todays hearings are the Super Bowl of the year! Trump says he is going to live Tweet during the hearing and the bars are offering up a free round of drinks for every time he Tweets. My guess is the watering holes around here will be packed ;) I mean what could possibly go wrong with a bunch of armed drunk Cowboys with differing attitudes?
From what Comey released last night about how President Trump kept trying to get him 'alone', I wonder if our Chief wasn't looking for a bit of a bromance. :-}
Does anyone think that Comey will knock out the Donald and become a big boy in American politics?
This is a very interesting thing playing out. President vs Secret Service director. Let's see if Comey was sufficiently smart to outmanoeuvre Trump. Any bets?
Reply to Agustino Nope. Reckon it'll just be what was in his opening testimony, which isn't anything we haven't heard from anonymous sources before.
Although the fact that he says that he had 6 phone conversations with Trump but only describes 2 of them leaves the window open for something new. But it could just be that these 4 conversations weren't worth reporting on.
Yes, while at my brief stint at college for a degree in economics I encountered a rather high amount of engagement and enthusiasm in the political economics class when Marx got brought up. He seems to have this very personal and empathic ability on people. It's hard NOT to like what he says, regardless whether it is viable or not in society.
Here's my little quip towards a Marxist-led economy...
Who's going to archive and save all the years and years of hard work that culminates into communism according to Marx? Surely human capital can be lost as well as knowledge and expertise. With everything so well off, who's going to keep the cogs moving and the grass trimmed and the libraries clean? After a while, the whole thing might turn into a decadent and anarchic state if you reject the authoritarianism seen in many proto-communist states.
I like Lomborg. As you'd expect, he's not popular with the Green movement, who have dedicated a lot of time to trashing his work, regarding him as "hugely influential in providing cover to politicians, climate-change deniers, and corporations that don't want any part of controls on greenhouse emissions".
I like Lomborg although I'm part of the Green movement. Provocateurs like him force Greens to sharpen up their act. The phrases you quote are by Sharon Begley, a science writer who isn't part of the green movement at all, she's just a respected science journalist who, in the piece you quoted, receommended readers to read both Lomborg's views, Friel's rebuttal and Lomborg's rebuttal of the rebuttal. But Lomborg's case is basically that anthropogenic global warming is (a) not as serious as the consensus thinks; (b) too expensive to counter. I think this is a misjudgement on both counts. We should on a precautionary basis err on the side of caution about what we are bequeathing to the future, and we should spend a good deal to help those who might be seriously affected and lack the resources to take precautionary preventative action.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 08, 2017 at 13:16#758140 likes
Let's see if Comey was sufficiently smart to outmanoeuvre Trump. Any bets?
No bets but I do hope that someone will ask Comey for his "memos" he kept under the last administration's possible nefarious acts that happened between Clinton and Loretta Lyn at Sky Harbor Airport. Surely he kept just as complete memos.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 08, 2017 at 13:21#758170 likes
No bets but I do hope that someone will ask Comey for his "memos" he kept under the last administration's possible nefarious acts that happened between Clinton and Loretta Lyn at Sky Harbor Airport. Surely he kept just as complete memos.
I doubt they'll veer away from the main topic.
As a private citizen? I sure as hell would. What have you got to lose? Your job?
There'll still be classified stuff that he legally can't say. And I believe he's spoken to Mueller who likely has advised him against saying other stuff that might otherwise be legal to say.
As a private citizen? I sure as hell would. What have you got to lose? Your job?
Well to begin with, you might lose the opportunity of becoming a big boy in the future in politics. What if Comey wants to become President in the future? He needs to leverage this occasion in his favour, which means he has to play his cards right.
But Lomborg's case is basically that anthropogenic global warming is (a) not as serious as the consensus thinks; (b) too expensive to counter. I think this is a misjudgement on both counts. We should on a precautionary basis err on the side of caution about what we are bequeathing to the future, and we should spend a good deal to help those who might be seriously affected and lack the resources to take precautionary preventative action.
I can't fathom why people think that slowing down carbon emissions is supposed to have some significant effect. The petroleum and natural gas will be gone in the next century (per David Archer), and then the question will be: will the North American coal reserves be burned?
David Archer, who taught global warming science at the University of Chicago, explains a little philosophical problem regarding doing something about global warming: humans have no experience making plans that extend out beyond one century. We would have to figure out how to do that to be confident that anything we're doing today will have any impact at all.
Archer's book The Deep Thaw is an easy read. I found it to be a great way to get the bigger picture.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 08, 2017 at 13:31#758210 likes
As a private citizen? I sure as hell would. What have you got to lose? Your job?
[quote="Michael]There'll still be classified stuff that he legally can't say. And I believe he's spoken to Mueller who likely has advised him against saying other stuff that might otherwise be legal to say[/quote]
I know there is stuff he will not be able to say in the public hearing but there is a closed door hearing after the public hearing today, so maybe it will be fleshed out there. If it is, we can count on the leaks in this administration to fill in the gaps.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 08, 2017 at 13:32#758220 likes
Well to begin with, you might lose the opportunity of becoming a big boy in the future in politics. What if Comey wants to become President in the future? He needs to leverage this occasion in his favour, which means he has to play his cards right.
True but do you honestly think that Comey is going to want to have anything to do with the Executive branch again?
True but do you honestly think that Comey is going to want to have anything to do with the Executive branch again?
What else would you expect him to do? I mean once you've been FBI director, there's not much higher that you can go. So either he'll want to shoot for the very top in the future, or he'll want to become like George W. Bush and live a peaceful life on a ranch.
Either way, the fact he has prepared detailed notes on Trump before, suggests that he knew about the possibility of this happening, and has prepared the groundwork. Why would he have done that if he doesn't have larger ambitions? Otherwise he could just have resigned by himself.
So nothing can be done! Nothing can change human nature at a large scale.
But not this. We are greedy, but we don't have to be. But a greedy person will never convince another to stop being greedy, they must change themselves first. To say that nothing can be done is a good excuse for not changing.
I like Lomborg although I'm part of the Green movement. Provocateurs like him force Greens to sharpen up their act. The phrases you quote are by Sharon Begley, a science writer who isn't part of the green movement at all, she's just a respected science journalist who, in the piece you quoted, receommended readers to read both Lomborg's views, Friel's rebuttal and Lomborg's rebuttal of the rebuttal. But Lomborg's case is basically that anthropogenic global warming is (a) not as serious as the consensus thinks; (b) too expensive to counter. I think this is a misjudgement on both counts. We should on a precautionary basis err on the side of caution about what we are bequeathing to the future, and we should spend a good deal to help those who might be seriously affected and lack the resources to take precautionary preventative action.
To be fair, he does see the need to solve the problem of global warming and believes we can do it. From a few days ago:
[quote=Bjorn Lomborg]To solve global warming, we need to invest far more into making green energy competitive. If solar and wind generation and storage were cheaper than fossil fuels, it wouldn’t be necessary to force or subsidize anyone to stop burning coal and oil.
Research for Copenhagen Consensus shows a green energy R&D fund worth just 0.2 per cent of global GDP would dramatically increase the chance of a technological revolution. This would be significantly cheaper and much more effective than the Kyoto-Paris approach. Economists calculate returns to society of around $11 for every dollar invested.
A technology-led effort could advance not just solar and wind but all alternative-energy technologies. Encouraging world leaders would be far easier than strong-arming and bribing them into cutting growth – but it is also something that a smaller group of countries could pursue alone, and reap benefits. A carbon price might support such a policy, but climate-change policy must logically be technology-led.[/quote]
Either way, the fact he has prepared detailed notes on Trump before, suggests that he knew about the possibility of this happening, and has prepared the groundwork. Why would he have done that if he doesn't have larger ambitions?
Because one habit that is ingrained in people that work for any of the alphabet arms of the government is that documentation is key, full stop. They log the air they breathe as does that ID card that allows them movement in the inners of our secret intelligence agencies.
On Comeys' future? I think he will take a break from the public life, while creating a private company that does investigations of the same nature but where he will be the ultimate boss.
Like Mike Baker did in creating Diligence LLC. He is on the Imus radio show and network news shows as an authority. (said in her best Eric Cartman voice) 8-)
But not this. We are greedy, but we don't have to be. But a greedy person will never convince another to stop being greedy, they must change themselves first.
Okay, but I'm a practical guy, so speak to me in practical terms. How will you communicate all this to your average man? Us who are having this conversation aren't average - at least not in terms of intelligence, knowledge and education - you may be able to communicate these things to us, and we may even be able to understand them and seek to implement them in our own lives. But that is millions of miles away from changing the average man (and woman) out there.
Like literarily - many people don't even care about what you've just said up there. They don't even care if they're greedy, etc. You think I could go to one of my neighbours in the village where I'm from and convince them to - for example - stop beating their sons when they don't listen to them? And imagine if I can't even convince one of them, how can I convince thousands - millions of such people - around the world? It's all so unrealistic.
That's why changing the world - the average man - is impossible. We may be able to change ONE average person - maybe a few - but the whole effort required to do that, even for a single person, is immense.
Because one habit that is ingrained in people that work for any of the alphabet arms of the government is that documentation is key, full stop. They log the air they breathe as does that ID card that allows them movement in the inners of our secret intelligence agencies.
Sure, but be realistic now. The notes he took seem to be extremely detailed. Why did he take such detailed notes? Comey isn't dumb. Do you think it was impossible for Comey to foresee that Trump would fire him? And if he did foresee it, would he take no measures to prepare in case it happened?
The notes he took seem to be extremely detailed. Why did he take such detailed notes? Comey isn't dumb. Do you think it was impossible for Comey to foresee that Trump would fire him? And if he did foresee it, would he take no measures to prepare in case it happened?
Again, I suggest that it is in their training. In the second year of college, for a B.S. in Global Security and Intelligence, the course: Intelligence Writing is required and the description is:
COM 223 Intelligence Writing 3 Credits (3,0)
The purpose of this course is to teach the basic skills of intelligence writing. The most essential principle of intelligence writing is to communicate to the reader exactly the message the analyst wants to communicate. Clarity, precision, accuracy, and brevity are key elements of intelligence writing, but also crucial is the overall structure of the intelligence brief. Two further elements are part of the intelligence writing process: a capacity to accurately evaluate information and an ability to make analytical judgments about the significance of a development. All these elements will be covered intensively as part of the intelligence writing process.
Reply to MichaelReply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Okay, what about the other questions I've asked? James Comey is not dumb. Could he not have predicted that Trump would fire him? In case he did, would he have done nothing to prepare, counterattack, etc.?
James Comey is not dumb. Could he not have predicted that Trump would fire him? In case he did, would he have done nothing to prepare, counterattack, etc.?
Not a mind-reader. All I know is that he was surprised when it happened, and first thought it was a prank.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 08, 2017 at 14:01#758340 likes
Okay, what about the other questions I've asked? James Comey is not dumb. Could he not have predicted that Trump would fire him? In case he did, would he have done nothing to prepare, counterattack, etc.?
I think James Comey was doing his job with the same due diligence that I am asking to see about the Loretta Lynch meeting that got James in the seat that he is in today. That would prove both sides we are debating here. Was his detailed memo writing consistent across both administrations?
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 08, 2017 at 14:04#758350 likes
Like literarily - many people don't even care about what you've just said up there. They don't even care if they're greedy, etc. You think I could go to one of my neighbours in the village where I'm from and convince them to - for example - stop beating their sons when they don't listen to them?
Well of course, no one is going to be transformed just by reading my posts. But if your neighbour sees that you don't beat your sons, and that they listen a lot better as a result, then you might well convince them to change with a few kind words.
I don't convince anyone of anything. I shatter them. I push them until they break and admit the truth. They do require a certain level of sensitivity for this to work though. If you're too numb, then it won't work.
Even sicker today than yesterday, bad chest congestion. Decided to stay home. Also a bit off from the cough syrup, though only took recommended amount.
That's true. I normally sleep 3-6 hours a night. Got 4 last night. It's a vegan super power, as herbivores require the least amount of sleep. Though, I do plan to pretty much sleep all day. Prolly have a hot bath first.
That's true. I normally sleep 3-6 hours a night. Got 4 last night. It's a vegan super power, as herbivores require the least amount of sleep. Though, I do plan to pretty much sleep all day. Prolly have a hot bath first.
I sleep the same amount as you and I'm not a vegan. I quit with the baths after my mom got rid of all my little boats.
I only brought up the vegan thing, because it's on my mind. See, my mom a little brother were sick last week, but a couple days ago I got "lactose free" chocolate milk, right beside the silk stuff, but it was real, skim milk. I got home and took like two gulps from it before I noticed, and then was sick when I got up, days after they were. So, I figure that I was carrying it, and that horrible shit lowered my immune system, or moved me closer to an acidic rather than alkaline base, which made the symptoms manifest. Could also just be a coinkidink.
Well of course, no one is going to be transformed just by reading my posts. But if your neighbour sees that you don't beat your sons, and that they listen a lot better as a result, then you might well convince them to change with a few kind words.
Right. And the possibility of scaling this operation is almost 0 - hence the average man will never, realistically, hope to become better. Implementing your suggestion takes a very long time, and will only help teach a very tiny number of people (if successful - cause it might not be and my sons could be the rebellious kind who just wouldn't obey me either way). Society at large will remain unaffected, which is precisely what I've been saying.
Intellectuals like us have a tendency of thinking the average man is equally capable of understanding and thinking things through as we are. But this is totally not true, as sad as this is. I'm actively trying to make my close friends better people. For example there's this guy I've known since I was a child for a very long time. Slowly through many many conversations I've been making him better educated, more intelligent and more moral. And I'm actively working on shaping him, because the stronger one's friends, the stronger one becomes - and even like this, it's hard.
For example, if I made him read this post, he couldn't get past the first sentence. Not because his brain doesn't work, but he gets immediately bored - can't focus. Not like you and me. We can read 50,000 words a day and not have an issue. Not this guy. So the occasions when I can teach him something are rare, and most often it has to be by example. I can't talk philosophy with him like I do with you, cause he won't listen. And I have many such friends/acquaintances. So if I'm having a hard time even building an army of such people around me, how much harder would it be to make a society of such people?
People really lack the virtues, big time. Like very big time. Impatient, lazy, can't focus, etc. Even at this small level I'm failing - sure you can say it's because I suck and I can't educate people - but the truth is that nobody can educate people in a reasonable amount of time once they are already adults. That's why dictatorships put a lot of emphasis on schooling for everyone - schools are a way to indoctrinate all children from the very beginning, when they can actually be educated and shaped. Once one reaches past a certain age, if they haven't already accumulated a minimum of knowledge, then there's very little hope for them.
You and I can hope to educate people who are already intelligent - but we have no chance with the average man (and woman). We're fucked.
See, my mom a little brother were sick last week, but a couple days ago I got "lactose free" chocolate milk, right beside the silk stuff, but it was real, skim milk. I got home and took like two gulps from it before I noticed, and then was sick when I got up, days after they were.
There's another theory I arrived at after reading your day-in-the-life post. Maybe you caught the shit your mom and little bro had. They proved in the 18th century that there were germs that caused illness and they made people contagious. That's another possibility as opposed to your whole body out of line with nature, god, and the universe theory.
Don't be senselessly averse. Because something is "dirty" or "improper" rather than actually harmful. I've had people tell me that hot yoga is gross because of all of the other people's sweat in the air... yet, but when your body is warm, it's more malleable, and reduces risks of harming yourself...
Maybe I need a reality check or am hallucinating... Did Comey not just tell the whole American public in broad daylight that without the help of the Russians, Trump would never have gotten elected. Not that there necessary was collusion between the Russians and Trump; but, that there was blatant interference in the democratic process of electing a president.
Maybe I'm high; but, in one hour Comey showed more grit and resolve than Trump has, since being elected.
If Jesus came back, men would throw him back on the Cross immediately. The average man will refuse salvation. Pff. Man is too dumb, too weak, too servile - generally speaking. Man doesn't want morality - man doesn't want good. He wants bread, power, irresponsibility. The animalistic desires that are found in man's soul are too strong for most.
We "judge men too highly". We judge them in our own image - but they'll never be there. Try as we may - we'll go from the cradle to the grave, and nothing will change. Of course that doesn't stop us trying - just like a bird doesn't stop singing its song - but that won't do anything in the end.
If Jesus came back, men would throw him back on the Cross immediately.
I think you are right, but it is not the ignorant men that would put Him there, though they would be induced to cheer, it is the intelligent men - the Grand Inquisitors.
I think you are right, but it is not the ignorant men that would put Him there, though they would be induced to cheer, it is the intelligent men - the Grand Inquisitors.
See, the GI can induce the ignorant to cheer. Without their cheers, the whole procession would be impossible. Why can the GI induce the ignorant to cheer? Because the GI is selling what the ignorant actually want - bread, irresponsibility, power, authority - Jesus doesn't. Jesus has no chance - because he doesn't sell what people already want. The GI markets to the natural desires of men - that's why the devil always rules this world.
A vow of total silence for two months, and some fasting from all habitual activities for at least a couple of weeks. Not necessarily right now, but you should try that sometime.
You still haven't even answered that question. Why do you think Comey would lie about his emotional state? Do you really think that he has some ulterior motive in doing so? Wait, don't tell me... he's just butthurt over getting fired by Trump?
Comey is a man of integrity and decency who faced down an erratic bully and ego-maniac in Trump. I commend him.
That said, Comey, despite being fired by the man for no good reason, repeatedly asserted that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to tamper with votes. Absent that evidence, that the media and the Democrats cannot let this story go is becoming nothing more than a witch-hunt and an attempt at obstruction. I want to see Congress finally move forward on health care, tax, and immigration reform, as it promised to and as Trump promised to.
That said, Comey, despite being fired by the man for no good reason, repeatedly asserted that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to tamper with votes. Absent that evidence, that the media and the Democrats cannot let this story go is becoming nothing more than a witch-hunt and an attempt at obstruction.
Comey said that Trump was not the target of a counterintelligence investigation and that no votes were changed. He didn't say that the Trump campaign didn't collude with Russia to influence the election, which is what is being investigated.
Lawyers often defend vile people and they should. Everybody deserves a defense. Kasowitz wasn't performing that function. He was just trying to produce spin. It's nauseating.
Comey said that Trump was not the target of a counterintelligence investigation and that no votes were changed. He didn't say that the Trump campaign didn't collude with Russia to influence the election, which is what is being investigated.
Right, he didn't say that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia because, at present, there is no evidence to that effect. :-}
Comey said that Trump was not the target of a counterintelligence investigation and that no votes were changed.
That's not what I heard. Comey repeatedly asserted that the DNC, and DCCC were targets of Russian intervention along with... at least a hundred upwards to a thousand D-NGO's.
Like I said, time will tell. Comey seems supremely confident that Mueller will finish what he began but wasn't allowed to finish.
Right, he didn't say that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia because, at present, there is no evidence to that effect.
You changed the wording here. First you said "Comey ... asserted that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to tamper with votes" and now you're saying
"he didn't say that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia because, at present, there is no evidence to that effect". Which is it? There's a difference between asserting that something isn't the case and not asserting that something is the case.
Also, you accused the Democrats of pushing the story that the campaign colluded to tamper with the votes, but they're not. They're accusing the campaign of colluding to influence the election (e.g. via hacking the DNC and leaking info, or promoting fake news), which isn't the same thing.
While, this is true on face value of Comey at the time not being aware of altered votes, as of recent there is evidence emerging that votes were altered through the various of software used to cast electronic votes. I'll have to scour the internet for that piece of information if anyone is interested.
Reply to Michael Comey asserted that Trump was not under investigation and that no votes were tampered with. The former accusation applies to Trump himself and the latter to both Trump and his campaign. What Comey did not explicitly assert but which is nonetheless true is that there is no evidence of any other kind of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign at present.
Ergo, people need to shut up about this and move on to more important things.
What Comey did not explicitly assert but which is nonetheless true is that there is no evidence of any other kind of collusion between the Russians and the Trump campaign at present.
Right, so this isn't something that Comey said. It's just something that you're saying.
The above details are from the NSA. So, I'm glad it's not all down to the FBI to figure out what happened. But, then again do we know that any other director will get kicked for 'no good reason'?
Reply to Michael I can admit to being unclear in my wording, but I see you didn't dispute what I said when I clarified, so there's nothing more for me to say.
The investigations against Russia are ongoing and will continue, as they should. But Congress needs to stop focusing on this issue, let the people in charge do their jobs, and actually get on to arguably more important things. The same goes for the media. If evidence is brought to light, great, focus your efforts on it then, but there's no reason to now.
Reply to Thorongil
The thing is that the investigation is only picking up speed. If I'm not mistaken there are currently 4 or 5 ongoing investigation of Russian interference. So, lets just focus on this issue and not beat around the bush with it.
I can admit to being unclear in my wording, but I see you didn't dispute what I said when I clarified, so there's nothing more for me to say.
I do dispute what you said. You said that "the media and the Democrats cannot let [the story that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to tamper with the votes] go". But that's not the story. The story is that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the election.
And as for there being no evidence of this, Adam Schiff would disagree.
And as for there being no evidence of this, Adam Schiff would disagree.
Lol. So? Nothing has been made public, and until then, I will withhold judgment. I suspect you and Schiff may want there to be such evidence, but that doesn't mean there is or that what the latter deems as legitimate evidence really is.
Starts out with an alien child who is unnaturally robust in a world filled with monsters. He learns martial arts and becomes an underdog hero!
Then he learns how to shoot concentrated beams of energy out of his hands, is able to move short distances at near light speed, could destroy an entire planet with ease, and is generally invulnerable to all known forces. That's not enough though...
Then he gets the power to essentially gather all the "chi" energy in the known universe and form it into a concentrated attack in order to defeat his most powerful enemy yet...
AND THEY'RE STILL NOT DONE?
They made Goku into a kid again and threw in a multi verse, but at this point we all already now that he is an unstoppable god.
That's how DBZ will end. Goku will become or defeat god...
Nothing has been made public, and until then, I will withhold judgment.
You didn't withhold judgement. You claimed that there was no evidence, that the entire thing is a witch hunt and an attempt at obstruction, and that "people need to shut up about this and move on to more important things".
I suspect you and Schiff may want there to be such evidence, but that doesn't mean there is or that what the latter deems as legitimate evidence really is.
And I suspect that you and Trump may want there to not be such evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't.
Oh please. The whole body has been paralyzed by this issue, such that nothing is getting done on health care, taxes, and immigration.
That doesn't refute my point that (certain members of) Congress are the "people in charge do[ing] their jobs", and so should be focusing on the issue.
And while we're on the topic, I'm glad (on behalf of Americans), that the Republican-controlled Congress isn't getting anything done on health care, taxes, and immigration. Their plans seem pretty terrible.
VagabondSpectreJune 08, 2017 at 19:52#759780 likes
Reply to Wosret I watched it ritualistically as a child, right up until the "Bu" enemy was defeated and then Dragonball GT came out (IIRC?).
I watched the first episode of dragonball universe but the production quality was so shit I was convinced it was fan-made...
I'll take Roshi-Bulma shenanigans or even endless battles with Cell-Freeza-Dr-Gero et al over a forced quasi redo of the original any day ("the tournament").
You didn't withhold judgement. You claimed that there was no evidence, that the entire thing is a witch hunt and an attempt at obstruction, and that "people need to shut up about this and move on to more important things".
I have always stated that there is no evidence at present. And yes, this issue is currently being used as a witch hunt against Trump and an attempt to obstruct the passage of other legislation. Third, yes, I think people need to stop talking about this unless, of course, they have something worthwhile to say, such as, "here's evidence that the Trump campaign unequivocally colluded with Russia."
He's faster than light by the end of DB, and many many many many times that by the end of DBZ. He's never made a spirit bomb of anywhere near the proportions of the entire universe.
Made goku a kid again is not toriyama. It's "super" and not "universe".
Even if there was irrefutable evidence of obstruction or perjury or the like I'd put the odds at 0% so long as the Republicans have the majority.
The only thing less fair than him being tried before a Republican Senate would be to be tried before a Democrat one. At least before Republicans, there is no way an innocent man would be convicted, which is a lesser evil than a guilty man being acquitted.
The only thing less fair than him being tried before a Republican Senate would be to be tried before a Democrat one. At least before Republicans, there is no way an innocent man would be convicted, which is a lesser evil than a guilty man being acquitted.
Maybe if it led to imprisonment. Less so if it's just a removal from office. Surely having a criminal as President is worse than having an innocent man replaced with someone else?
Besides, I did preface my reply with "Even if there was irrefutable evidence of obstruction or perjury or the like..."
VagabondSpectreJune 08, 2017 at 20:19#760020 likes
Issue #1: "Faster than light": It's only in his first encounters with Nappa and Vegeta that the "blink" movement is depicted in the shows (IIRC), which is described as merely "faster than the eye can see". Given that we can see energy blasts traveling and the dodges which follow, we know that they're at least not traveling at light speed. I'm not sure why you think hat OG kid Goku could move faster than light but up until the Vegeta encounters everything was entirely visible.
Issue #2 "The spirit bomb": In order to defeat Bu Goku made the largest spirit bomb to have ever existed. Arguably he did not gather all the chi energy in the universe, but the implication was that he gathered a portion of the chi from everything in the universe (IIRC). I will cede the technicality that it wasn't all the chi energy, but it may have been a sizable chunk of it, and his ability to do should he choose remains.
Issue #3 "Made goku and kid again is not toriyama". Dragon Ball GT (where Goku becomes a kid) is not considered canon?
Issue #4 "The correct name of the show is Dragon Ball Super": You're definitely right about this one...
Did Comey not just tell the whole American public in broad daylight that without the help of the Russians, Trump would never have gotten elected. Not that there necessary was collusion between the Russians and Trump; but, that there was blatant interference in the democratic process of electing a president.
The ultimate question of this inquiry is not whether the Russians affected the US election, but it's of whether Trump's administration colluded with the Russians to make that happen. If Comey is saying there is no evidence of Trump's involvement, the issue is closed. Even had Trump attempted to block Comey's investigation into Trump's involvement with Russia, if the truth is that Trump wasn't involved with Russia, then his obstruction charge would become moot. He obstructed an investigation into his innocence, which is a pretty crazy place for this to land. It seems maybe it's as Trump had suggested: He was being investigated on bogus charges and it was sidetracking his presidency, so he wanted it halted. He wasn't hiding anything. He was just trying to hasten the end to a Democrat effort to delegitimize him.
Even had Trump attempted to block Comey's investigation into Trump's involvement with Russia, if the truth is that Trump wasn't involved with Russia, then his obstruction charge would become moot. He obstructed an investigation into his innocence, which is a pretty crazy place for this to land.
As far as I'm aware, it would still be a crime. Just as escaping from prison after a wrongful conviction is a crime.
Maybe if it led to imprisonment. Less so if it's just a removal from office. Surely having a criminal as President is worse than have an innocent man replaced with someone else?
Why so sure? A criminal (and remember this is an obstruction charge, not a murder charge) who was democratically elected would be better to have in office than an innocent man who gained his position by someone else's fraud.
Besides, I did preface my reply with "Even if there was irrefutable evidence of obstruction or perjury or the like..."
I know. I was offering the counter to that, which was "even if there were insufficient evidence..."
Nope, Goku outruns the solar flare to get Roshi's glasses in the tournament. Even if the solar flare (something that amplifies the light of the sun at your back) isn't the speed of light, it would have to be close, and he'd had to be multiple times faster to pull that off. People often dispute this for ridiculous reasons, yet Whis in super can fly across the universe in like 45 min. They usually dispute this because when goku asks how long snake way is, buddy says that it's "rumored to be" 1 million kilometers, but toriyama actually drew a picture, and snake way runs the entire length of the galaxy. Look it up. Makes sense, since it's the afterlife for the entire galaxy.
They made the spirit bomb from the people of earth after wishing them back. There was a big thing about it, where Vegeta and Hercule has to telepathically persuade them too. Remember?
I don't care who considers it what, it's a turd in actuality.
Reply to Michael Sure, but it's getting awful stupid now. If Trump were innocent of the investigation he attempted to derail, it seems like it's time to look for something real to attack him on. We're in the world of hyper-technicality now, which ought not be what our Congress spends its time on. Let the buffoon rule for God's sake.
I didn't know James Comey is a wuss who gets easily intimidated by Donald Trump and tells him he agrees Flynn is a good guy because nothing else comes to mind. More like he was looking to hold his job while still doing what he wanted, thinking he can fool the Trump. You shouldn't be so stupid to buy that.
We're talking of the head of a secret service, who is absolutely capable at reading people, predicting their reactions, knowing their motivations, and handling them. This is not some sorry ass coward who gets intimidated by a few words. If anything, he should be FAR BETTER than Trump at manipulating the public - and it shows, he's got all of your fooled.
He's not the holy man you're all making him out to be. He very smartly tried to manipulate the situation, and he's still doing it. His plan A failed, he's on plan B atm.
My point is that he wasn't trying to "serve the nation" or whatever other bullshit, he was just trying to stay in power. He spent his time writing Trump memos, and arranging his back in case he gets fired. He chose his words carefully to try to prevent himself from getting fired, while also leaving open an exit in case he did get fired to be able to turn it against Trump.
He didn't tell Trump that Flynn is a good guy by accident or because he was intimidated. He told him by design. The mirroring in the language was supposed to communicate trust and agreement in a subtle way.
My point is that he wasn't trying to "serve the nation" or whatever other bullshit, he was just trying to stay in power.
I didn't realise these were mutually exclusive. Surely every politician, government official, and so on seeks to keep their job and to serve the country (which is their job)?
VagabondSpectreJune 08, 2017 at 20:49#760190 likes
Nope, Goku outruns the solar flare to get Roshi's glasses in the tournament. Even if the solar flare (something that amplifies the light of the sun at your back). People often dispute this for ridiculous reasons, yet Whis in super can fly across the universe in like 45 min. They usually dispute this because when goku asks how long snake way is, buddy says that it's "rumored to be" 1 million kilometers, but toriyama actually drew a picture, and snake way runs the entire length of the galaxy. Look it up. Makes sense, since it's the afterlife for the entire galaxy.
Arguably Goku went for the glasses before Tien actually released "solar flare". I would like to see a breakdown of the event before I take this as evidence. Regarding the length of snake way, are you suggesting that since Goku has completed this journey of 100k light years (numerous times) in under 100k years that he must have been traveling FTL? Is Toriyama's galaxy actually 100k light years across? It's also entirely possible that the space around snake way is bent and stretched such that it spans the galaxy without actually being to scale in length.
I'll cede that the spirit bomb Goku made was using the chi energy of the inhabitants of earth (it has been awhile indeed)...
I would argue that Tiens solar flare move is not analogous to a light-speed projectile move but rather a move which causes the light to slowly grow in intensity and that the length of snake-way would create too many issues were we to accept it as over 100k light years long.
P.S: If indeed FTL travel is the best interpretation for DB mechanics, it wouldn't surprise me given how absurd their power scaling has become, but perhaps this only makes my original point even stronger...
I didn't realise these were mutually exclusive. Surely every politician, government official, and so on seeks to keep their jobs and to serve the country (which is their job)?
I didn't say they were. Only that his real motivations weren't what he claims them to be.
I didn't say they were. Only that his real motivations weren't what he claims them to be.
I thought he was very clear about his motivations:
WARNER: Did you feel that you needed to create this written record or (ph) these memos because they might need to be relied on at some future date?
COMEY: Sure. I created records after conversations, and I think I did it after each of our nine conversations. If I didn’t, I did it for nearly all of them, especially the ones that were substantive.
I knew that there might come a day when I would need a record of what had happened, not just to defend myself...
He's not the holy man you're all making him out to be. He very smartly tried to manipulate the situation, and he's still doing it. His plan A failed, he's on plan B atm.
Mongolia is known for its rampant corruption. You don't know what to do with an honest man.
FEINSTEIN: Let's go to the Flynn issue. The senator outlined, “I hope you could see your way to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” But you also said in your written remarks, and I quote, that you “had understood the president to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December,”. Please go into that with more detail.
COMEY: Well, the context and the president's word are what led me to that conclusion. As I said in my statement, I could be wrong, but Flynn had been forced to resign the day before. And the controversy around general Flynn at that point in time was centered on whether he lied to the vice president about his nature of conversations with the Russians, whether he had been candid with others in the course of that. So that happens on the day before. On the 1, the president makes reference to that. I understood what he wanted me to do was drop any investigation connected to Flynn's account of his conversations with the Russians.
FEINSTEIN: Now, here's the question, you're big. You're strong. I know the oval office, and I know what happens to people when they walk in. There is a certain amount of intimidation. But why didn't you stop and say, Mr. President, this is wrong. I cannot discuss this with you.
COMEY: It's a great question. Maybe if I were stronger, I would have. I was so stunned by the conversation that I just took in. The only thing I could think to say, because I was playing in my mind -- because I could remember every word he said -- I was playing in my mind, what should my response be? That's why I carefully chose the words. Look, I've seen the tweet about tapes. Lordy, I hope there are tapes. I remember saying, “I agree he is a good guy,” as a way of saying, I'm not agreeing with what you asked me to do. Again, maybe other people would be stronger in that circumstance. That's how Ed myself. I hope I'll never have another opportunity. Maybe if I did it again, I'd do it better
__________________
Right here. Comey isn't a weakling okay? He's not a wuss. You really think he was "stunned"? He said what he did to Trump in order to try to fool him and keep his job. They were words designed both to subtly agree to Trump, and give him an exit in case he ever had to reveal them to the public.
If Comey was that full of integrity he would have reported on Trump publicly, and resigned as FBI director. Not wait to get fired. He just wanted to cling to his chair.
It's called lowering the bar so as I don't have to work as hard to feel superior. It's all assured to me that I am, as I grow fat and alone, and accumulate worthless garbage.
Reply to Mongrel I don't think so much. They were pretty recent and a few days after each attack they suspended any campaigning. But to be honest I wasn't paying much attention.
Reply to Agustino That's a remake. The original Stooges went to Mars. It was awesome. As the Spiders from Mars appear on the horizon, the Stooges run into the control room of the spaceship and stand before a big wall full of buttons. Curly says "What do we do?" Moe says "Push buttons!" The three of them commence pushing buttons, and the space ship takes off.
To this day that phrase pops into my mind when things are getting frayed around the edges. "Push buttons!"
Jesus, I have someone close to me who fits that description exactly. I've witnessed the pointless clinging and suffering that they dare not admit even to themselves.
Hopefully, you were just speaking nonsense for your own amusement as Agustino suggested. If you were serious, then trust me, and avoid that path at all costs.
Reply to Michael I know! Early days yet, but very interesting. Looks good for Corbyn, bad for May. So far, some swings to Labour and some gains too. The look on Amber Rudd's face! (She might lose her seat). Also, Tim Farron, Nick Clegg, Angus Robertson, Alex Samond, and other senior Tories at risk of losing seats (like the Tory responsible for coming up with the manifesto). And to those Corbyn critics in the PLP: take that!
Interesting predictions and results in Scotland with SNP losses, and some Labour gains. Labour's doing well in Wales and the South, so far. And entirely predictable that UKIP are doing absolutely terribly, but very interesting that less of the UKIP vote than expected is going to the Tories, and is instead being split more evenly between the two main parties.
This just in from Laura Kuenssberg: senior Tories are now accepting that they're not going go do better than the exit poll! Ooh, and Angus Robertson, Leader of the SNP in Westminster, has lost his seat to a Tory!
Reply to Mongrel Does heart disease fly planes into buildings, blow themselves up in crowded market squares, run people over with a bus, stab people whilst screaming "Allahu Akbar!"?
Does heart disease fly planes into buildings, blow themselves up in crowded market squares, run people over with a bus, stab people whilst screaming "Allahu Akbar!"?
The difference is that terrorists intend to kill you. A soggy roof or a too-sweet glass of tea does not.
Several months ago my university had a student run people over with his car while they were walking to class on the sidewalk. Now, was he a terrorist in the non-academic use of the term? No, but he intended to run people over and did so. That's a whole lot more "problematic" than dying in an accident or as a result of your own actions.
Also, say there was a whole group of vindictive college students camping out in some abandoned, remote parking lot, plotting to run people over in the name of Allahu Snackbars. Wouldn't that worry you? And say this group running people over propagated other groups of nutters to go out and form little cliques with the intention of running people over, wouldn't this terrify you? Or would you still be like, "lul, im still more likely to die by lightning, lel"?
Reply to Bitter Crank I honestly do not remember. Perhaps he wanted to give stick to the faux liberal profs and prove that sidewalks cannot be safe spaces, :B
Also, say there was a whole group of vindictive college students camping out in some abandoned, remote parking lot, plotting to run people over in the name of Allahu Snackbars.
Unauthorized camping out in parking lots, especially remote parking lots, is an outrage that insults the prophet. Firebomb the vindictive sons of bitches. Let every abandoned remote parking lot become a running river of harmless merriment (per the Mikado).
It seems the Conservatives will remain the majority, but I think their losses to Labour serves them right. My impression is that they have been largely sitting on their hands on a lot of issues. Plus, Cameron was on the wrong side of Brexit.
I think the same will happen to Republicans in 2018 unless they actually pass health, tax, and immigration reform.
"We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and showing the [...] that we've got more guts than they have or ever will have. We're not just going to shoot the bastards, we're going to rip out their living goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket."
Reply to Mongrel I had a fly in the house last week. I'm fairly certain he was deliberately trying to piss me off by dive bombing my face.
Ahh, you've bought into the propaganda employed by politicians to keep you alarmed and feeling insecure, and employed by the media as sensationalism designed to sell their wares.
"We'll win this war, but we'll win it only by fighting and showing the [...] that we've got more guts than they have or ever will have. We're not just going to shoot the bastards, we're going to rip out their living goddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks. We're going to murder those lousy Hun cocksuckers by the bushel-fucking-basket."
The perfect antidote for the sickly inability to use force!
They say that ten thousand small cuts can bring down the largest beast. The spite and resentment comes out in passive, cowardly forms. Though, I'm no small beast, it will take more than a few billion to bring me down.
I am sensitive to the passive aggression, and plausible deniability that both attacks your senses and mind, but I've grown accustomed to it. This is why I confront people directly, they can hate me if they want.
You know, when you don't have anything that anyone wants, that's when they tell you the truth. I was born in the void, born sick. Born numb. Also born poorest around. No one wanted anything from me, and everyone told me the truth without couching, or fear.
This only began to gradually change, as I changed. I myself hold some deep resentment towards this, towards what cowards everyone turned out to be, when I was always the one afraid of them, but they only did that to me because of my complete lack of power.
And further, in case it is thought to be mere insinuation, rather than allusion, or subtly. Psychopaths lack fear, because they lack inhibition. This isn't entirely true though, as when you don't want something or avoid it, it tends to amplify, but when you chase it, it dulls. Pyschos don't feel fear (for them excitement) as easily as other people... but that's the thing. The predator and prey analogy is supposed to draw out the implication that if one is not sympathetically fearful with the prey, then they're not identifying with them. If they're feeling excitement by the fear, then they have become something else, something dangerous.
A lack of fear, when everyone around you is afraid, is to empathize, but not sympathize, precisely like a psychopath. Everything we know about such severe anti-social personalities suggests this.
Even Jesus was a counter-culture twat, really. I bet everyone thinks that if I am something close to Jesus, I must be going to die soon, or be killed. That's because that's what he fucking taught. Martyrdom.
No, I'll chose life. I want to live a quite poor life, and make a family. I'm less confident in my ability to do this than to fool the world, but I only ever wanted revolution, to control, because of resentment, fear, ignorance, and hatred. No, I'm not the exception. No, it's not okay if it's me. I'm not the special, the only good one in a wicked world.
Let's see - you're paying the state taxes, and the state pays you what you paid them - niiiiice!
Reply to Agustino No, the robots pay the taxes. The people just do the consumerism.
You're to old fashioned. The workforce is becoming increasingly automated, putting people out of jobs. Fast forward a bit and most jobs are being done by robots, or computers, where are all the people? The're unemployed. Call it unemployed benefit, or the state paying people an income, it amounts to the same thing. What the people are doing is the necessary consumerism, while the robots and computers do all the work. Just watch the film Wall-e.
Jesus, I have someone close to me who fits that description exactly. I've witnessed the pointless clinging and suffering that they dare not admit even to themselves.
Hopefully, you were just speaking nonsense for your own amusement as Agustino suggested. If you were serious, then trust me, and avoid that path at all costs.
No, unfortunately this crazy person was directing those comments at me. It's not the first time he makes stuff up about others - and it's just annoying because he's pulling stuff out of his arse as you Aussies would say >:O
But as his recent comments (or shall I say rants) make clear, he's a bit cuckoo, overly sensitive and even psychotic.
The difference is that terrorists intend to kill you. A soggy roof or a too-sweet glass of tea does not.
Several months ago my university had a student run people over with his car while they were walking to class on the sidewalk. Now, was he a terrorist in the non-academic use of the term? No, but he intended to run people over and did so. That's a whole lot more "problematic" than dying in an accident or as a result of your own actions.
Also, say there was a whole group of vindictive college students camping out in some abandoned, remote parking lot, plotting to run people over in the name of Allahu Snackbars. Wouldn't that worry you? And say this group running people over propagated other groups of nutters to go out and form little cliques with the intention of running people over, wouldn't this terrify you? Or would you still be like, "lul, im still more likely to die by lightning, lel"?
It's remarkable how often we hear that response. I might be more likely to die in the kitchen than from a terrorist's bullet, but it hardly follows that the dangers of kitchens should occupy my thoughts more than murderers who want to kill innocents and destroy the things I value. If the concern is to prevent fear and panic, then I can understand it, but I don't think this is how it's usually meant. It actually seems to be an attempt to minimize the problem.
And the implication is always that I should be most concerned about what is likely to kill me, as if my politics should primarily be about my personal comfort and safety. I mean, I'm very unlikely to be stoned to death, and yet it really bothers me that women are being stoned to death for adultery.
I'm not sure what you mean? Like, how I said that stuff was about me? I just said that it was about me to soften the blow.
I'm glad to hear you're not "assured of your own superiority as you grow fat and alone and accumulate worthless garbage" then, and that you were not speaking about yourself and were just spouting nonsense after all. Unless you have reached the point of denial where there is the pointless clinging and suffering that you dare not admit even to yourself?
No man, since saying I'm "speaking nonsense", and "in suffering denial" lacks content, they're just things you're telling yourself in order to not listen.
I might be more likely to die in the kitchen than from a terrorist's bullet, but it hardly follows that the dangers of kitchens should occupy my thoughts more than murderers who want to kill innocents and destroy the things I value. If the concern is to prevent fear and panic, then I can understand it, but I don't think this is how it's usually meant. It actually seems to be an attempt to minimize the problem.
The discussion was about what we should focus on during an election. Terrorism was elected because it's a serious problem. I don't say it's not a serious problem. I'm suspicious that it occupies your thoughts more than heart disease (wonder why it gets shifted to kitchen hazards?) because it's dramatic. There's a villain. There's a cultural conflict. There are dark-skinned towel-heads wielding swords.
Meanwhile poor little heart disease gets ignored while it's a much bigger monster and the government, as the brain of society, could actually do something about it. Or child abuse. Why isn't that flashy enough to get peoples' attention?
The discussion was about what we should focus on during an election. Terrorism was elected because it's a serious problem. I don't say it's not a serious problem. I'm suspicious that it occupies your thoughts more than heart disease (wonder why it gets shifted to kitchen hazards?) because it's dramatic. There's a villain. There's a cultural conflict. There are dark-skinned towel-heads wielding swords.
Meanwhile poor little heart disease gets ignored while it's a much bigger monster and the government, as the brain of society, could actually do something about it. Or child abuse. Why isn't that flashy enough to get peoples' attention?
Does heart disease threaten the national security of a country? :s
There are dark-skinned towel-heads wielding swords.
I don't doubt that sentiments like these might be common among some Americans, but it's got nothing to do with my own preoccupations. "Dark-skinned towel-heads" are being killed and abused by Islamic radicals in the Middle East. It's remarkable that speaking out against terrorism, or emphasizing the struggle against Islamic fundamentalism, is taken to be aligned with racism or xenophobia. From my point of view, it's about showing solidarity with Muslims (along with others) who are being oppressed by conservatives and extremists.
By the way, I'm not interested in the original point about how terrorism factors into the election. I was responding to Heister's post only.
You know, when you don't have anything that anyone wants, that's when they tell you the truth. I was born in the void, born sick. Born numb. Also born poorest around. No one wanted anything from me, and everyone told me the truth without couching, or fear.
Yes! I see it! The greatest superhero is a pile of ashes on the floor that the greatest villian passes by as he comes to pillage. Amidst the devestation as the townspeople shake in fear, worried they'll be further slashed by the demonic fangs of the arch enemy, the ashes remain calm, assured, knowing that since they've got nothing, they've got nothing to lose and will so remain untouched. The profound power of powerlessness.
An empty vessel though in every sense of the word.
I think it's healthy to be repulsed by weakness, in the same way it's healthy to be repulsed by illness. Don't the weak strive to be strong? Isn't strength better than weakness?
Reply to Wosret Yes. Weakness is the failure to own your past but to boldly accept who you are, while demanding of yourself improvement where you stumbled, but not meekly submitting to your failures.
Irony is a mastery of truth. We will simply be looking for all of the weaknesses in others as a deflection mechanism because we hate it so much, that we're unwilling to see it in ourselves.
Reply to Wosret The weakest are oblivious to their flaws, sitting smugly at the chess board, self assured, never realizing they are on a predictable path to defeat. They see only the other player's pieces.
Reply to Hanover It is also not relying on being defined by the opinions of others. Wosret was attempting to convey that one may see that this reliance is false when one has nothing to offer.
Reply to Wosret Oh please... You don't offer insight there. I know me all too well. It's my favorite topic. I know why I do as I do, and you aren't wrong in your assessment.
Reply to Wosret Yeah of course. Power settles everything ultimately. Always been like this, always will be like this, everything else is only appearance. The strongest always won and made the rules - everyone else obeyed.
I might be more likely to die in the kitchen than from a terrorist's bullet, but it hardly follows that the dangers of kitchens should occupy my thoughts more than murderers who want to kill innocents and destroy the things I value.
I don't know about that. If you are not paying attention in the kitchen when you're cutting things up with those big knives, it could be bad. I think the dangers of your kitchen should occupy your mind much more than thoughts of murderers who want to kill you, unless you actually know some who are out to get you. I'm sure you're acquainted with "paranoia". What about those things you value? Do you value them more than your life, which could be lost in your kitchen?
Reply to Metaphysician Undercover I obviously wasn't explicit enough. I meant occupy my thoughts regarding political and social issues, or something along those lines. Kitchen safety, I've got that down. I keep my knives sharp and stuff. I have a sharpening stone.
Reply to Wosret It was you that said that when you don't have anything to offer that others end up speaking the truth, perhaps in this case philosophically. Prolonged existential disillusionment lacks the courage to take control of your own state of mind and that can be considered a weakness.
Reply to Wosret Quite. One eventually comes to enjoy being a bug, rather than a man. Being miserable and worthless are masochistic offerings that keep one reliant - rather contemptibly - on the opinions of others.
Well, your implication was that I had gender issues because I was masochistic. This is often the case, but not always. You should reason from the particular to the general, and not the other way around.
No, as suggested by all of the musicians, my ideals, and most of the things I say, it was narcissism, and the desire to be beautiful, and not ugly.
Well, your implication was that I had gender issues because I was masochistic. This is often the case, but not always.
Gender issues? Sorry buddy, but no, that was certainly not my implication. Perhaps a Freudian slip? I meant that some people thrive in misery, that they offer very little to the world, knowing that the world would respond negatively. They like it.
Well, your implication was that I had gender issues because I was masochistic.
An attempt at humor? It's not that I don't believe such issues might exist, but really, there was nothing in the subtext of what anyone had said that could lead to such an interpretation.
Quite. One eventually comes to enjoy being a bug, rather than a man. Being miserable and worthless are masochistic offerings that keep one reliant - rather contemptibly - on the opinions of others.
Quite, she says (responding to my allusion to the book), then says one can eventually come to enjoy being a bug rather than a man, and worthless and masochistic offerings that keep one reliant.
The subtext is so fucking subtle. Clearly I'm projecting.
Some say that to identify completely with strength or weakness, riches or poverty, success or failure, is to be spinning dizzily tied to the karmic wheel. Forever spinning, spinning. Until the ties are cut. Or so some say.
As for sudden clarity, more like a week off of drugs. Won't be completely cleaned out for a month. I'm just sick at home wasting time. I gotta do run errands anyway for hours in like three hours today, and not super feeling like it... dang.
I like bees, they're pretty cool. You know, they aren't all in colonies. Some are in family units, and aren't nearly as aggressive, or willing to throw their lives away, because they aren't drones.
When Tom Price accepted Trump's nomination as Secretary of Health and Human Services, he left a vacancy in Georgia's 6th District, a long time Republican leaning district. The Democrats, feeling they could achieve a symbolic win if they overtook the district, have spent almost $30,000,000 on the election, the most expensive House of Representative election in history. This one seat will do nothing practically because the Democrats will remain a minority, but they think it'll be a repudiation of Trump somehow if they win it. 94% of the money has come from outside Georgia. They're spending roughly $100 on every potential voter.
The Democrats, feeling they could achieve a symbolic win if they overtook the district, have spent almost $30,000,000 on the election, the most expensive House of Representative election in history.
I thought it was $30,000,000 spent in total, not just by the Democrats.
Reply to Hanover Handel wanted more debates than Ossoff, which usually suggests they both had internal polling showing either Handel's lead was not what it should be or Ossoff was actually leading. I haven't checked the latest though.
Reply to Michael Either way, it's a ridiculous amount to spend on a single district. In the primary, there was like a dozen Republicans and one Democrat (Ossoff). Ossoff had just less than the 50% needed to avoid the runoff, but the bigger point is that he lost collectively to the Republicans despite his outspending them. You'd expect those Republicans to vote for the single Republican. The Dems are also taking advantage of the fact that this is a special election with reduced turnout. Even if Ossoff wins, he'll be facing a serious challenge next cycle, and it'll be doubtful he'll be able to hold the seat during a regular election.
The whole things seems such a waste of money by a party desperate for any sort of win to celebrate.
Reply to John Well, like Heister, I think those stats are disingenuous to bring up. I've explained why elsewhere before. You can't compare unintended, potential accidents to trained killers who seek your death.
Reply to Hanover There are some reasons to find the race in the Georgia 6th interesting. It's about how changes in the Republican party will match up with demographic changes in America's affluent suburbs. The 6th is not quite the same place it was when it elected Newt Gingrich. Affluent suburbs are going purple, because higher education levels correlate with voting Democrat. The 6th is just one of the districts around the country that Democrats expect to pick up eventually, even if it's not this time. It used to be solid red.
At the same time, the GOP has changed. The influence of Movement Conservatives within the party is at an all time low. Instead of following the recommendations of the 2012 autopsy, the GOP is now all in as the party of older, whiter, maler, less educated, rural America.
So if Republicans lose the 6th, it could be a bellwether of changing demographics and their party's swerve in the wrong direction.
Also, there is well-known, socially prominent church in the 6th that has been very publicly sponsoring Syrian refugee families, doing what they see as their Christian duty. That makes the Republican attack ad that accuses Ossoff of being soft on refugees (he wants to let in terrorists) a little dissonant. That's fine for Trump's base, but the 6th is not Trump's base.
So if Republicans lose the 6th, it could be a bellwether of changing demographics and their party's swerve in the wrong direction.
That's the spin, but it's generally BS. This is the sixth effort the Dems have made to reverse their alarming trend of losing seats, especially in state houses. Maybe they can win this one, but doubtful. What it will mostly show is that $30,000,000 can make a difference wherever you spend it.
In 2016, just last year, Tom Price won the district by over 20 points. He spent only $1.7 million. https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia%27s_6th_Congressional_District_election,_2016.
There's been no great demographic shift in the past year. I'm sure if Ossoff wins, the press will spin it as you say, as they've been telling us that Georgia is a purple state for a decade or so now. They even suggested it was in play in the last election. Meanwhile, the Democrats have been shedding seats at rates not seen in certainly my lifetime, and the election results in Georgia have been as they always have.
The Democrats are united under Trump's nonsense, but the truth is that Asians, African Americans, Hispanics, west coast environmental liberals, east coast socialist liberals, gays and lesbians, and the various other minorities under the Democrat umbrella have very little in common other than their fear of an uncaring establishment. If that can be dealt with by a moderate Republican, the Democrats are going to be in greater trouble.
We have a press the consistently gets their predictions wrong, they buy into the Democratic narrative, and then they wonder why nobody cares what they have to say.
Also, there is well-known, socially prominent church in the 6th that has been very publicly sponsoring Syrian refugee families, doing what they see as their Christian duty. That makes the Republican attack ad that accuses Ossoff of being soft on refugees (he wants to let in terrorists) a little dissonant. That's fine for Trump's base, but the 6th is not Trump's base.
This is a profound misunderstanding of conservatism. I would be extremely surprised if a Trump supporter objected to assisting Syrian refugees. In fact, I would expect most offering the aid would be Christian, flag waving, Trump supporting conservatives. The evangelicals offering this aid certainly are not Clinton supporters.
There is nothing inconsistent with being in favor of controlled immigration, especially as it relates to those who may harbor animosity towards the US, and offering aid to displaced or suffering individuals. If you think the people manning the food lines, offering aid in times of disaster, and offering up large amounts in charity are Clinton supporters because there's an inherent connection between giving and democratic ideology, you're just very wrong. It's exactly the opposite.
Reply to Srap Tasmaner Such is the narrative of the left. Somehow the Republicans were able to manipulate the entire electoral map of the US despite Democrats being in the majority. I guess the gerrymandering started 200+ years ago as the states starting being carved out, considering 33 of the governors are Republican, 16 Democrat, and 1 independent.
Reply to Hanover I went hiking in Canada and locals gave me all kinds of conflicting advice on what to do if you come face to face with a bear. I concluded that either bears have highly varied personalities and moods, or that people are just full of crap.
Reply to jamalrob Same thing here. I was told by some to put a bell on my backpack to warn the bears and to buy pepper spray if they attack. Others told me that the bell would serve as a dinner bell and the pepper spray would serve as a condiment for the bears.
The old advice is that I just have to be able to outrun the slowest in my group. I can definitely do that.
We had this security expert come to our office to tell us what to do if there were a terrorist attack. He was a former marine. He said "run." He specifically said not to stop to help others because then you'll both just get killed. The danger of being civilized is that it doesn't work in uncivilized moments.
Reply to Michael You can't really bring them into schools, certainly not high schools or elementary schools. I think each state regulates their universities.
Reply to Hanover Dunno, I Googled "are guns allowed in schools" and the title of the second result starts with "Texas will allow guns on campus starting August 1" and is dated 31 Jul 2016, so I'm pretty sure my claim holds up in a court of law.
Fulton, Cobb, and Dekalb all went for Rubio in the primary. I couldn't easily find a vote breakdown by Congressional district, but I stand by my claim that the 6th is not Trump's base.
Of course taking in refugees is the Christian thing to do. Did you miss Trump suspending the refugee program. Have you seen the ad?
I know the stuff about charitable giving and it's not remotely relevant here.
Fulton, Cobb, and Dekalb all went for Rubio in the primary. I couldn't easily find a vote breakdown by Congressional district, but I stand by my claim that the 6th is not Trump's base.
Those who voted for Rubio in the primary most likely voted for Trump in the general election. The 6th needn't have favored Trump over Rubio for them to now favor Ossoff over Handel.
I really don't know what you mean when you say that Fulton or DeKalb went for Rubio. DeKalb is overwhelmingly Democrat and Fulton went for Clinton as well as I recall. It's a closer call in Fulton, but not DeKalb. Cobb went Republican. But, sure, none went for Trump, but I don't see how that translates into them now expected to be going for Ossoff.Quoting Srap Tasmaner
Of course taking in refugees is the Christian thing to do. Did you miss Trump suspending the refugee program. Have you seen the ad?
Again, you don't understand the conservative position. They will both favor limiting refugees into the US and will then offer them aid once here. It eludes you how that can be. I understand that, but I'm just saying that the Republicans of the 6th who are now offering aid to the Syrians are not going to vote Ossoff because they're offended by Trump's immigration policies. (1) They aren't offended by Trump's immigration position, and (2) they feel a requirement to help the needy, regardless of where they are. That is to say, they'd help the poor in Mexico while in Mexico (and in fact they do), and they wouldn't stop helping them just because they're now on US soil. However, they would be opposed to allowing them to immigrate. It's two separate issues that you can't conflate. Quoting Srap Tasmaner
I know the stuff about charitable giving and it's not remotely relevant here.
You think it's irrelevant because you can't grasp the conservative mindset and you keep spouting nonsense about how a conservative who helps refugees must also favor immigration policies that permit entry of refugees. Charity and government action are not intertwined in a conservative's mindset. You might think it's hypocritical and stupid, but it's leading to your misunderstanding of what's going on.
We had this security expert come to our office to tell us what to do if there were a terrorist attack. He was a former marine. He said "run." He specifically said not to stop to help others because then you'll both just get killed. The danger of being civilized is that it doesn't work in uncivilized moments.
In case of a terrorist attack, take a pistol and shoot the fuck out of that motherfucker. Heh. Teach the bastard a lesson.
Those who voted for Rubio in the primary most likely voted for Trump in the general election. The 6th needn't have favored Trump over Rubio for them to now favor Ossoff over Handel.
Which is why I said I never thought Ossoff had a chance. But he got nearly 50% the first time around. The suburbs and exurbs are changing. It's a fact.
The Republican party has also been changing, but not in a way that helps keep affluent suburbs in the fold.
I didn't say most of the things you think I said. If you can't be bothered to read what I actually wrote, and prefer assuming you know what I need to have explained to me, I'm just going to ignore you.
I stopped by to talk about what's interesting about the race in the Georgia 6th, not to promote my own politics. I am capable of distinguishing those, are you?
I'm going to Montana, Glacier National Park for 9 days. Fishing, hiking, biking. Maybe I'll get eaten by a bear.
Incidentally, there's a new game coming out called Far Cry 5 set in Montana, whose fictional bad guys are... wait for it... violent Christian, white right-wing cultists that players can gleefully mow down. The inspiration came from an apparently similar cult that existed in the state and the fact that people like Richard Spencer have spent time there.
So, basically, you'll be lucky if you make it out alive, but not because of the bears. We might as well rename it Helmand province.
didn't say most of the things you think I said. If you can't be bothered to read what I actually wrote, and prefer assuming you know what I need to have explained to me, I'm just going to ignore you.
Don't get all pissy. It's very unappealing.
What I said is true, which is (1) the polls can't be trusted, (2) if Ossoff wins it will not signify anything about the Democratic party other than money wins elections, (3) the Republican party and north Atlanta suburbs have not significantly changed since 2016 when Price won the district by 20 points, (4) the Georgia vote for Trump was due to the limited binary choice between him and Clinton and was never a strong voice for Trump, (5) the conservative outreach to Syrian refugees is not evidence that they will reject someone who is not supportive of Syrian immigration into the US, (6) the Republican dominance in recent elections is not due to fraud or manipulation, but due to fair elections, (7) the Democrats will have all sorts of problems keeping their hodge-podge of groups together once the unifying force of the Satanic Trump is eliminated, and (8) the press is constantly trying to create a narrative that the Democrats haven't taken a hard core thumping in the past few election cycles.
Huh. In the 2015 election, the winner of the North East Fife constituency had a majority of 4,344. Last night the winner had a majority of 2. The smallest majority since the Exeter constituency (my constituency!) in 1910, which had a majority of 1.
Guess I should recant my earlier claim that a single vote doesn't make a difference.
You can't compare unintended, potential accidents to trained killers who seek your death.
They both may cause your death, but the former is far more likely than the latter, so what's the difference, according to you?
Note, I acknowledge that terrorism is one among many other threats we face, and like all threats it should be addressed to the very best of the our abilities, which means that terrorists should be treated with the absolute contempt and ruthlessness that they deserve. Terrorism should be accorded a unique status as a special case of criminality. But beating it up to make it appear as the greatest threat we face won't help, because it plays into the hands of the terrorists, gives them the very air they need, and also because saying it's the greatest threat is plainly not based on the facts.
Reply to Hanover 1) Polling is complicated and it's silly to pretend otherwise.
2) Money can't change Republicans into Democrats.
3) It's just a trend, and a lot of people are curious about this election as a data-point, that's all.
4) Agree.
5) Agree, but I never said otherwise. There was one ad that does reflect the views of Trump and his base, but struck a somewhat dissonant note here.
6) Gerrymandering has been extremely important since 2010 in particular. Voter suppression has been on the rise since 2013. Do those dates mean anything to you?
7) Democrats don't know what being unified is.
8) Complicated, both the purported fact and the press's treatment of politics.
OK, but my point was just that as a threat it is neither the greatest threat (it is actually way down on the scale), nor is it a special class of threat; it is just another threat. I do think it is, though, as I already said, a special class of criminality and should be treated as such, simply because it is so radically unacceptable.
I just have a problem with all the hysteria it occasions.
If you're so worried about abandoning them, maybe carry them out and use them as a shield.
That would have been possible back when I worked with babies, but it's adults now. They're too big. My only hope is that if it happens, all my patients will have your personality and I can just say "Good luck, bitches!" as I scoot out the back stairway.
Reply to Sapientia Yea, but if the dude is crazy enough to go into a hospital to shoot people, I don't know if having premature babies thrown at him is going to make a dent.
Jamalrob, Reply to Mongrel I can't cope with the shoutbox like this, it moves on so fast while I'm rehearsing for a choir gig, kind of thing...you wrote stuff a couple of days ago and already it's deep in the archive. Anyway...
I do react badly to broad criticism of 'the green movement'. It isn't a mega-anything. Most green movers I know are just people in their spare time trying to draw attention to stuff that people obsessed by economic growth and so forth are not paying sufficient attention to. They get irritated with the egoism of a bloke like Lomborg - who does like the look of his own profile, let's face it - perhaps because many of them agree with him in private that much bigger steps are required sooner, but they in public carry on arguing for Kyoto/Paris-type agreements because they think something is better than nothing, and major symbolic acts can shift the mindset of the powerful. Trump leaving the Paris accord is a major symbolic act, so to speak only of its detailed effects is to miss the point.
Certainly green people I know believe in small is beautiful - like Lomborg in a sense - smaller, targeted work is what's needed. Both he and David Archer think we have to work at technological solutions, which will happen if we work hard enough at them. Well, maybe if they make their voices heard in the right places such things will happen but I see no sign of it yet. Whenever I've supported such stuff in the UK for instance - as when the Conservatives got in in 2010 saying they would be the greenest government ever - their support for green research and business rapidly fell by the wayside and someone like me feels a fool for ever trusting the bastards. The Tories did the dirty on nascent solar industry companies, for example, and have ditched the Green Development Bank - which I'm now pledging money to, in its newly privatised state, 'cause I believe in these small-scale initiatives writ large a thousand times over. I'm the sort of chump who owns a share in a local wind turbine. That's why I don't take well to feeling I'm being criticised in comparison to a chap like Lomborg (who has his scientific critics), who has some sparky ideas and also has some tropes that he knows will play well with parts of the media.
I don't think, incidentally, that Archer thinks we shouldn't cut down on emissions. My learning from him from way back when is that the effects are already longer-term than the populace thinks, and that only really drastic policies might have an effect now, including carbon capture storage and use. I personally agree with that, but I don't think it's a good reason not to buy into the next local turbine, or press for a Green economic policy, or make a hundred small changes locally to our river systems to mitigate the wave of floods we're experiencing where I live. In that sense I think Lomborg is a dangerous bloke because he waves at other policy initiatives that are purportedly better alternatives: this is not serious politics, it's wiseguyness, because for many people it's an excuse for more apathy.
@Bitter Crank Cranky, I've managed to watch Manufacturing Consent and it was quite good. I agree with many things there, so thanks for sharing that! Strange that I never came upon it before - maybe because I had discounted Noam after listening to some of his linguistics stuff.
Huh. In the 2015 election, the winner of the North East Fife constituency had a majority of 4,344. Last night the winner had a majority of 2. The smallest majority since the Exeter constituency (my constituency!) in 1910, which had a majority of 1.
Guess I should recant my earlier claim that a single vote doesn't make a difference.
Thoughts on DUP coalition? Odds of May resigning?
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 11, 2017 at 01:14#766620 likes
May has already resigned. In case you hadn't noticed it's now June.
Reply to Question What we look for as signs of dementia are changes in behavior. So if you used to not get enough of watching golden retriever videos, then changing to not being able to get enough marmalade cat videos would be a sign of terminal dementia, so yes.
Changing from preferring cheap store brand chocolate ice cream to preferring even cheaper store brand vanilla is a sign of dementia. Switching downmarket brands of yogurt is a bad sign. Switching from prose to all-haiku in your posts would be a sign of deteriorating function.
Post a lot while you still can.
Some foods slow down the process of developing dementia. Pomegranate is not one of them. Neither is green tea. The best foods for slowing down (or stopping) dementia are dishes like mashed potatoes with roast pork; waffles with butter and wild blueberry syrup; creamy coleslaw with apples and bananas; fried chicken; sweet potatoes with cranberry sauce; devils food cake; blueberry pie; coffee with real cream (or at least real half & half.
The right-wing papers are describing May as 'in office but not in power', which makes you feel maybe her time is up. I feel alarmed at the idea of the DUP being in part-coalition, but I doubt it can last.
The post-election surprise to me is that Scottish Conservatives are carving out a separate identity for themselves: insisting on protection for lgbt rights (as the DUP are so conservative in that area) and arguing for a softer form of Brexit. They too have a role in the delicate balance of power. It's quite hard to imagine how brexit negotiations are going to have a clear mandate from anyone; we in the uk might be in one of those democratic problem-situations where nobody can muster a majority for any given proposal.
The alliance with the DUP if it happens, would spell the end of power-sharing in N Ireland, already in abeyance, and quite possibly the resumption of what we never ever call the civil war. A price well worth paying to save the blushes of the tories - not even a little bit.
Personally, I blame the Scots; if they hadn't delivered 12 new tory MPs, it would have been out of the question. Oh the irony.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 11, 2017 at 14:04#767670 likes
While I realize that unsolicited advice is rarely appreciated, this piece that was shared with me by a 70+ yr old man, seems worth passing along.
"Never trust a fart after turning 40."
Buahahahahhahaaa the truths older folks are willing to impart to a captive audience. 8-)
A sign of dementia isn't forgetting the directions. It's forgetting where the car key goes. It's not forgetting your password. It's forgetting what that bank card does. It's not forgetting your parents' names. It's forgetting they died decades ago.
A sign of dementia isn't forgetting the directions. It's forgetting where the car key goes. It's not forgetting your password. It's forgetting what that bank card does. It's not forgetting your parents' names. It's forgetting they died decades ago.
I just saw Wonder Woman with my sister and nephew. It's just an insult that they didn't get a real fighter to play wonder woman (or at least real athlete). I actually thought I'd be wrong, having thought that it would be bad from the beginning, given the reviews... but it was as expected...
Was she really? I didn't know that... I just thought that they were so slow, posed after like every movement, and did a whole lot of big movements that seriously commit you to that movement, like flipping through the air and stuff. So lame...
I haven't seen it yet so I shouldn't comment. Just having a bit of fun, in the spirit of the shoutbox. It's getting rave reviews, though. So no good, in your view? DC seems to have a bad track record so far. Edit: or I guess Batman was DC though.
I don't have a lawn to mow anymore, which is fine but there were things I liked about mowing.
One of my friends over in UK told me that he bought a robot to mow his lawn, It looks like a humpy mower with no arms . He set it up to mow every 3rd day, and it takes about 3 hrs mowing with two charges. The mower knows when its getting low on juice or if starts to rain and it goes back to the charger refreshes itself or it wait out the rain (of course it has a moisture sensor to let it know when it is safe to get back at it). My friend does nothing, he does not even have to be around, he can operate it remotely by WiFi
Holly shit! I had a lawn I think I opt for the robot, although a big tractor is fun to ride (it becomes tiresome ... every 3rd day no way).
Reply to Michael I've seen quite a few political commentators who have expressed the view that this is one of the things that the election result has shown. May wanted to make it primarily about Brexit, but a lot of people didn't see it that way.
Mate, but you know, I have to say that this Corbyn is a low-energy guy, one falls asleep listening to him.
That's crazy talk. He drew massive crowds, was far more energised than May, and defied expectations. May was dull, reserved and robotic. May would have never eaten the Pringle or high-fived a boob. Corbyn's a ledge, mate. He's the absolute boy.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff He should apologise for the damage he has done to his own party, as recently as the election: his attacks on Jeremy Corbyn, his urging of voters to vote for another party (many within the party have been suspended for less), and his even making an appearance at all, given how unpopular and loathed he is.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Tiff, the moment he climbed into G W Bush's pocket, armed only with a dodgy dossier, was the moment his posthumous reputation was assured. The man who once made voters swoon...until...
Tiff, the moment he climbed into G W Bush's pocket
Oh but mcdoodle, that very act of standing with absolutely no sunlight between the USA and the United Kingdom, when a few in the world brought us to our knees, will forever endear me to Tony and the UK.
I decided to go to some hot yoga for my birthday, right, since I hadn't done that in like a year. It turned out to be free on your birthday too! But then... the horror.
Within three seconds, like first active pose, the instructor was over groping me, so I was all like "thanks, that's okay" kind of thing, so she left me alone, but then just started criticizing everything I did, far less than covertly, so that people were starting to like look over their shoulders at me and stuff... so I just had to leave in the middle of it. Holy.
You know what it really means to subjugate the world? It means that instead of mirroring anyone else, everyone starts mirroring me instead. I start to see myself reflected back at me more and more from everyone. I fucking love my own reflection, and it's happening more and more each day. I'm in the process of doing it while simultaneously claiming to do the opposite, you know? You won't become freer by listening to me, you'll receive a new master.
"for eventually the human being will find himself alone and abandoned by an indifferent cosmos in which the audience of gods has vacated the theater. Only the sound of the human being’s own voice echoes through the auditorium. But no one, by then, will be listening any longer."
You're the type that wants a different life, not to be a different person. That's half way there! So I'm not going to be that influential to you... but if I were rich, and had lots of stuff, I could be the biggest piece of shit imaginable, and you'd want to be me. Lol.
"for eventually the human being will find himself alone and abandoned by an indifferent cosmos in which the audience of gods has vacated the theater. Only the sound of the human being’s own voice echoes through the auditorium. But no one, by then, will be listening any longer."
Is this what Putin said privately to Megyn Kelly the night before in his palace? >:O
Reply to Agustino "But those are days, at this point in our narrative, that are still far in the future, for now we are concerned with the process whereby religion makes worlds as extensions of the human immune system, worlds which are essentially wombs inside which he is protected from the impacts of the Real. The process of deworlding the human being, of isolating his ego from the voices of the gods and of cutting him out as a figure against the ground of a larger, more empty and indifferent cosmos, has yet to unfold."
Reply to Agustino "The cacophony of phlegmatic and tubercular lungs was punctuated here and there by a moan or a scream of someone terrified, thrashing in the throes of a nightmare".
Reply to Wosret Well, I'm glad you had such a good time on your birthday. You don't know how lucky you are. It was my birthday last Sunday, and I had a horrible time having fun and celebrating with friends and loved ones.
If I recall correctly, @Michael's birthday is close to ours. Maybe it has already been and gone. Anyway, happy birthday, Michael. Edit: Wait, it's today! What good timing. If only that would happen more often. I've already forgotten to wish three of my closest friends a happy birthday on the day this year. And I can't remember this upcoming wedding date that I should know...
Yeah thanks. Birthdays are just another day to me really. We never celebrated those when I was growing up. I worked that day, then tried that yoga thing, then went home and everyone was busy really -- but it doesn't matter to me.
Perhaps Uncle Fred is right even though such a view seems to lead to a cult of heroic individual leadership. What am I to do, though, with my positive feelings of mutuality? The joy of choir-singing, the nights of dancing with a hundred others, the sense of release of the mass demonstration at the football game or the political rally?
And how am I to account for the resentment of anti-egalitarians? How their envy or disdain of what they say is the undeserved privilege of others, compared to their own obvious-to-them entitlement, sometimes seems to warp their very being?
Reply to mcdoodle Somebody threw some bread and the grackles arrived. Soon the big kahuna appeared, striking his sapphire gleam at the others. They backed up and waited for him to finish.
I recognize in myself both the instinct to follow and the instinct to lead. I can join the collective in the choir or I can stand up and lead. In fact that instinct to lead presses me the most when there is chaos and a big kahuna is required.
If I'm following Fred, it's not in regard to his conclusions, but just in trying to figure it out for myself.
I recognize in myself both the instinct to follow and the instinct to lead...If I'm following Fred, it's not in regard to his conclusions, but just in trying to figure it out for myself.
I have both 'instincts' too. If you want something doing, ask a busy person, for instance: they will have stepped forward when everyone else responded to the call for volunteers by looking down at their papers/phones, or by nominating someone else, possibly you.
What I don't recognize empirically about Fred's claim is the strong resentment --> egalitarianism link. Of course there is one for some people, some time. But the feeling of fellowship/collectivity/mutuality...that seems a strong feeling in its own right. We are social animals, 'individualism' is a sophistication. Some people were in the Soviet Communist Party for good reasons - in a democratic country they would probably have been in a democratic party - and the loss of the word 'comrade' since 1990 is a genuine loss. Or so I figure :)
Don't distrust and be too suspicious of anyone. They're just not fucking magic, is all. The people I'm pointing out all know first hand that you need a raft to cross that raging river. The heroes journey, basically. You become them, through mirroring them. Humanity is a ladder. When you see someone that has something that you want, you instinctively wish to emulate them, because instinctively you know that they must be doing something, being a way, and if you do it, and be it, you can have it too. Music is the best for me, because it really is an unintrusive call to mimic. You sing along, and have a good time -- but they're influences you while you're mirroring them.
The thing is, that, as the gnostics say, the god of this world (your world) is either ignorant, or a prick, basically. We are super ready to think we're tops of the universe constantly. So, mirroring someone, stealing their strengths and overcoming their weaknesses, may leave one feeling that they've become the best ever, or broken into a special class of human being or something.
Nothing wrong with mirroring people to steal their strengths and overcome their weaknesses. Just don't look for their attention, don't try to impress them, and don't fucking become them. Throw away the raft when you're done with it, as Da Buddha would say.
Reply to Mongrel I do think mutuality is natural. I find 'altruism' as a virtue a modern annoyance; it seems to accompany a belief in natural egoism that I don't follow. We like to do things with others for their and our benefit.
But I do find myself hard to pin down! Where in turn does the emphasis on resentment in motivating egalitarianism take you?
Reply to mcdoodle A theory: where population density is low, there might be some envy, some resentment. In the Russian mir they say sons would twist under the thumb of the father.. But it's a relatively stable situation.
When density increases resentment starts to boil. Maybe there's some selection for aggressive people. Egalitarianism is an avenue to stability.
I don't think it has anything to do with Jews or Christianity.
?
Reply to Mongrel I agree it's not much to do with Judeo-Christian beliefs, though Acts is quite communist. I don't know about variables like 'population density'. It's late here, brain may be offline :). I found myself thinking of Stalin's intense resentment of the Kulaks - and how he touched a nerve among his fellows so they agreed to persecute the people providing their bread. Don't know how this fits, time for bed!
Understatement of the year. Without mutuality, only Ray Mears would survive, and he would only outlast the rest of us by a week before dying of lack of publicity.
Money and property are originally ways of systematising and regulating mutuality and preventing freeloading. Unfortunately the system no longer works very well because the freeloaders have learned to exploit it and turn it against us.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 16, 2017 at 11:01#779500 likes
Belated Happy Birthday to Michael, Wosret and Sapientia my fine feathered friend!
Cheers to hoping your special days were Awesome!
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 16, 2017 at 11:32#779530 likes
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 16, 2017 at 11:43#779620 likes
I'm in Montana, I suspect not terribly far from Wosret, or at least much closer than when in Atlanta. It stays in the 50s and 60s ( F not C) here, much lower than back home, and not very summery. I'd move here, but the commute would be terrible and most of my clothes are so far away. Since I've been here, I've had a chance to climb a mountain top, look down upon the promised, and watch justice pour from the falls into a mighty river. Then I had a sammich and took a selfie.
That's nothing. I once played badminton non-stop for 10 years in the center of the Sun. And I won every match.
Plays badminton, wears plaid, jerks off to leftist socialist politicians, hasn't gone to college but reads philosophy, likes cats and coffee...Sappy, you are indeed the Überhipster. Niezschszhsczhcschze would be proud!
[hide]This is a joke. Please unbutton your plaid shirt before the steam burns up my post. kthxbai[/hide]
Just quit my job, going to move closer to my sister. I have an extremely difficult time repressing anything, and I just tell everyone exactly what I think all the time now... including about their bullshit, and boss is trying to get too close to me, and bugging me, and I don't feel happy, or like I'm gaining enough for this anymore. I'd rather move to where there are more people, and closer to my sister than be stuck out here, being bugged.
So, wasn't super thinking of the consequences... but we'll see how things turn out, lol.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 17, 2017 at 19:13#782930 likes
So, wasn't super thinking of the consequences... but we'll see how things turn out, lol.
I have seen you take this leap of faith in yourself before Wos and you landed in a better place than you were before so I KNOW you will be okay. It will take some time to get through the path of change you are embarking on but you are past the trailhead so my advice to you is: keep doing what you are doing and remember to have faith in your self.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 17, 2017 at 19:32#783010 likes
My God, that's fierce. I'm struggling with the heat here and it's only 30 celcius (86 in old money).
It's best not to think about how absolutely lung burning dry the air is right now. It truly feels like when you open an oven to put in a pizza and get blasted with the searing heat. I try really hard not to bitch about the heat but there comes a time when it gets to you. People are freaking cranky, no one holds a door for anyone and any extra questions are not appreciated. There was blip on tv that said people who are enduring the heat do become more selfish but it is so subliminal I never thought about it much. It makes sense as I imagine there are all kinds of self preservation instincts that kick in physiologically.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 17, 2017 at 19:34#783030 likes
I haven't had the opportunity to bitch and carp about the verdict in the St. Paul police slaying case--Philando shot and killed by a cop during a traffic stop. The jury returned a not-guilty verdict on all three counts after deliberating for several days.
Immediately there was a fairly large (but peaceful) demonstration, blocking an interstate highway and shutting down the transit system for a while. ALL of the usual accusations were made about the police, the courts, the trial, and the jury. The chants, the signs, the news stories, were repeats of what had been said 100 times since the shooting a year ago.
There isn't any dispute that police officer Geronimo Yanez shot Philando Castile. What was alleged was that it wasn't necessary (for self protection) for Yanez to shoot Castile--making it a manslaughter case.
A large part of the case revolved around the gun Castile told Yanez he had in his pocket. After telling the officer he had the gun, Castile reached for -- something -- his ID or the gun, we don't/can't know which. Castile was under the influence of marijuana at the time. A factor? Don't know.
Why was Castile carrying a gun in his pocket during a routine trip to the grocery store with his family (which is what his girlfriend says they were returning from). Why does a school cafeteria worker need to carry a gun around?
It seems to me that if I, an elderly-ish white guy, was stopped by a cop, and I said "Hey, officer, I've got a gun in my pocket", and then reached for something in my pants -- maybe the requested driver's license, maybe the gun, maybe a cough drop -- that I would have a good chance of getting shot.
This was not a white-cop on black-guy crime. (FWIW, Mexican Americans are usually sorted into the people of color pile; since officer Yanez wasn't decidedly brown and was a cop, after all, the protestors reclassified him as white). It was a police on armed motorist event.
Driving while intoxicated with a gun in one's pocket is just not sensible behavior. Too many things can go wrong. People: THINK! Drive sober and don't buy, carry, or use guns for self-defense (or for other purposes). It usually doesn't work. Cops are armed with guns, the law, and public opinion. The cop probably won't be convicted and even if he or she is, it won't bring you back to life. People: WAKE UP! Get rid of your guns. The life you save might be your own.
I hope that things work out, kind of worried. I'm going to try to find a new job on monday, and then get ready for this. I can't say whether it was a mistake or not, I wasn't thinking of the consequences... for the nature of monkey was irrepressible.
I was monumentally wrong today too, and in a way that kind of shook my confidence. Don't really have anyone around with a super ton of faith in me. Most of them think I've become a crazy idiot, including my Dad. He disputes a lot of the things I say, and never admits fault, and always paints it as me disputing him. I was talking about the rules of driving to my sister, and was mistaken about the way you turn your tires on the curb, but because of a build up to this over many instances, I overreacted, and was way too confident about a detail... or a fact, which isn't a general principle which can be reasoned through... so brow beat the point, not wanting to argue, and moving immediately to demonstration. We first went out and attempted it with the car, but still disagreed, so looked it up on my phone and he ended up being right... and super enjoyed it, and was super happy about it. It was annoying because I of course always admit when he is right, but he never admits when I am. I did really overreact to it, particularly when I ended up being wrong. I had to salk about it for like 20 min before I got over it. I need to remember that details aren't things I can discern with reason, and my memory can't be trusted. I normally wouldn't have given a shit, nor wanted to rub in being right so badly if it hadn't been for the last few days... dang, gotta remember not to be so confident when it comes to details from memory, and just check without flipping my shit...
Sounds familiar, I had a bout of depression late last year and wasn't capable of tolerating any bullsh#t whatsoever. I can also stubbornly persist in holding my own honesty / integrity as the highest value, often resulting in self-sabotaging behaviour when it comes to making life easy.
It might be worthwhile to remember that a lot of things which might be evident for you aren't as evident for others and that a lot of people have mental self defence mechanisms in place to protect them from thinking badly about themselves, or just from thinking...
It's more psychology then philosophy but Robert Kurzban's "Why Everybody (Else) is a Hypocrite" sheds some interesting insights into how and why this might work, Steven Pinker also has an interesting lecture about how / why we tend to use bullsh#t instead of telling others what we really think: (wonder if he will come out with a book about the topic in the near future) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eay1-m7RpoU and the topic of cognitive dissonance is probably something you're quite familiar with. Personally I'm hoping insights from psychology will make it easier in the future to be able to go through life without the need for so much delusion or pretending nobody knows what's actually going on.
On a side note, I thought I found someone with whom I wouldn't have to play pretend... seemed really genuine and there was some really deep communication. Being unable / unwilling to put up with what I'd call "crap" has prevented me from engaging in an intimate relationship (that and some other issues I have, lol) most all my life, imagine the irony that I now seem to be in the biggest sh#tshow of my life where I've impregnated a female who 'now' has her head so firmly stuck in the sand that any confrontational talk about our ordeal makes for the most amazing live cases of cognitive dissonance / coping strategies I've ever seen! (don't tell me it's the hormones!!!).
I'm addicted to stimulants. My environment isn't at all stimulating so I have to find ways to entertain myself and this source of getting one's kicks, sucks. It's been back and forth between legal means (It's America, you can get a prescription for even meth if you want) and semi-legal means of getting designer drugs close to the parent compound. Never let my habit turn into something illegal.
Psychologically I've told myself too many times that I need stimulants to function; but, that can't be true. Yet the suffering continues.
Go outside more. Occupy yourself with a hobby, and just go for more walks.
I agree with the walks. I'd also add exercise. I've been sitting down on a chair a lot more this year (partly because of the nature of my work) so apart from martial arts training / gym I haven't done much walking/running. A mistake. I should start going for walks too. Very powerful way to get your creativity and juices running!
If he's so bored that the environment isn't stimulating, he should make it into a goal to, for example, become the fittest person he knows in the next year. Doing that will open a lot more doors, and the environment will gradually change too.
Paul, Rousseau, Kierkegaard, they all met god while on a stroll. The reason they used to get you to lay down on your back in those couch dealies for therapy is because that positions increases blood flow, which helps you think more clearly. Plus, it stimulates communication between the hemispheres of the brain, because left foot, right foot, left foot, right foot. Which will spawn creativity.
My advice though, is watch the dissonance of the tempos of your two sides. They move at different speeds, with different rhythms. Attempt to better synchronize them.
You know why you realize that the ego isn't real? Because you start to realize that you really are just a voice in your own head... and all attempts at control reduce to manipulation. Lies, confusion, doubt, subterfuge... stop hitting yourselves...
Life's job isn't to entertain or stimulate you. That takes work. Find an interest or you'll consume yourself until you really hit rock bottom and it may be too late. I'm into photography, keeps me out and about and creative. Anyway, your drug habit is a shortcut to nowhere. The only way out is suffering. Be a man and take it on the chin.
[quote=Richard Koenigsberg]Belief in "rationality" (the fundamental delusion of Western civilization) makes it difficult to interpret political events. Astonishing how the energy of so many intelligent Americans is spent ARGUING WITH DELUSIONS, as if "rational arguments" will turn things around: enable people to "see the light."[/quote]
That's great. Particularly the bar fight observation. Grappling is pretty much all I've ever seen as well (though I have seen a couple good ones), though I've never really hung out at bars. When I was in school I would just trip them over and over again usually until they stopped. I once got punched in the ear from behind though, that really sucked.
I've actually repeatedly blacked out within a half hour as well. Half and half of vodka and orange juice. I drank heavily from when I had my first full time job at 16, until I was like 21ish. I've gone to work blacked out, and come to mopping floors. I once blacked out for 12 whole hours on moonshine.
You definitely don't just hit the floor though, you go on to do a shit load of things you luckily won't remember. Though I once read someone speculate that we need to be in similar states, contexts, and environments to trigger recall, so perhaps you remember all of the stuff that happens to you while you're blacked out, from every other time you were blacked out! Lol.
I just looked it up, because I thought that you could hallucinate as well on bad alcohol, but I see that pyschosis can be a side effect of withdrawal for heavy drinkers... me thinks that the opposite is actually true, and maybe buddy hasn't drank enough, lol.
I'm just back from Hull, City of Culture this year in the UK. You may know Spencer Tunick's most recent work was there, I occasionally meet people who say, 'I was one of the blue people' and that's what they mean - they got naked and painted blue for Spencer Tunick.
But actually I was struck by this picture. Ribera, 17th century Spaniard working in Naples, had a reputation apparently for the gory and violent, but did a whole series of 'philosophers' of which this is just one (reflection of gallery is not by Ribera :) ).
Life's job isn't to entertain or stimulate you. That takes work.
Sadly, while I understand the importance of work and its positive effects on fending off boredom, I am in the process of applying for disability where I live.
Philosophy stimulates me to a good extent; but, I guess I've developed some tolerance to it or whatever as of late.
I appreciate the advice though and understand that it's important to keep a healthy amount of enthusiasm and interest in the diversity and unpredictability that life entails.
I really wish there was some genetic test to objectively say that s/he has it or not, as the ambiguity is just terrible. I take my meds regardless and continue functioning dysfunctionally.
When I said "that takes work", I didn't mean a job necessarily. I mean try to express yourself in some creative way rather than let the world define you. Of course if you're battling mental health issues that's an extra challenge.
I have everything I need to do it myself. The only thing I didn't do is talk to people, and the talkers were making all of the money and doing almost none of the work. I'm even far more likeable than they are. People don't encounter someone like me very often. I know someone that only takes cash, and still has no problem getting work.
All they do is go to houses that need roofs done and ask them if they want it done, and give them an estimate. Do that for a whole day, and they'd usually always get at least one. And then the momentum will keep things going with referrals, and people coming right over to ask me about it.
I was going to just get another job, but now I'm thinking that I'll just start my own business. Doing all of that red tape and government stuff is going to suck. I don't have much patience for it.
See how this works out. Even if it doesn't, and I decide to do something else, I could turn my truck over for at least 5k pretty quickly. I won't have trouble moving, or getting another place, or getting another job.
I'll try the challenging, risky thing with the highest possible pay off first though.
I was going to just get another job, but now I'm thinking that I'll just start my own business. Doing all of that red tape and government stuff is going to suck. I don't have much patience for it.
Great idea man! (Y) Wish you a lot of success! Not familiar with Canadian law, but I'm quite familiar with general business practice, so if you need any help, post a question in the Shoutbox and I'll answer you!
The general idea though is that most often people who first get started waste too much time dealing with red tape and government. It's better to make mistakes and fix them on the go than to get everything right and spend 4x the time.
All they do is go to houses that need roofs done and ask them if they want it done, and give them an estimate. Do that for a whole day, and they'd usually always get at least one. And then the momentum will keep things going with referrals, and people coming right over to ask me about it.
Absolutely, you can start a business out of mostly anything. But don't forget to save up or re-invest a large share of your earnings to keep an edge. If you're doing something local, once you have earnings, one of the best things you can do is setup a website and a Google Adwords campaign on relevant keywords. The amazing thing about this is that you can use Google's Keyword Planner, check for keywords, and, say your business is dog walking, you can select your local area and check how many people are searching for "dog walking New York" for example. That gives you a good idea of how much market you'd be able to reach online (that would automate your business model faster, as you won't have to go as much in-person looking for deals).
Printing flyers, etc. to spread around once you've got earnings (once again, that part is very important) is also an idea that I've seen work quite successfully for some.
Reply to Wosret
Don't forget to grow some cash crop in a spare place now that its legal in Canada, or if its still not then maybe a medical card could let you do that. Pays the utility bills and mortgage. In gonna try and convince my mom if I can grow indoors to pay the bills. Already grow in the backyard but nobody buys outdoor stuff.
Question, please be careful in how you mix your Psyche meds and drugs like Meth and Cannabis. Both can have adverse effects on Paranoid schizophrenia without combining them with formal prescribed medications. And yes, I think you are highly intelligent and know this possible effect but sometimes it helps to be reminded.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 19, 2017 at 12:09#787580 likes
I was going to just get another job, but now I'm thinking that I'll just start my own business. Doing all of that red tape and government stuff is going to suck. I don't have much patience for it.
I am not sure about Canada but it's possible that if you start your own business, that truck of yours can become a company asset and you can take that $5k right off the top of your taxable income.
Typically people smoke/cook/vaporize/eat/consume their own produce since there's a six plant limit, at least where I live. California produces most of the cannabis for the US, so despite it now being legal and in 2018 commercial growing will be legal prices will still be at some decent level until it gets legalized federally. Furthermore, we have pretty limited knowledge about what the cannabinoids that are present in Cannabis do apart from CBD, THC, and some others. So, expect more positive research in regards to the medical use of marijuana to maintain demand also for therapeutic use for all sorts of problems unrelated to immunological disorders like Crohn's disease or psoriasis, cancer, etc.
Besides making money it's a pretty therapeutic and grounding hobby. I don't spend hours looking at my plants; but, seeing them grow is a nice thing to see in your backyard.
Lastly, the people you deal with in regards to sale or just bartering your produce are pretty cool. So, you get to meet new friends and people.
Besides making money it's a pretty therapeutic and grounding hobby. I don't spend hours looking at my plants; but, seeing them grow is a nice thing to see in your backyard.
Yes, I'm well aware of the dangers, and my mother is all too well aware, rather, unfortunately.
It looks like I've made a full circle for the matter. I really wish I could just dump the habit; but, the psychological addictive component is already there. The proverbial monkey on the back won't go away. So, I've made up my mind to not play around anymore with designer drugs and just stick to a prescription for Concerta and just stick to that.
How do you advertise it haha? How do you get your leads?
There are some ways to advertise your product. Most of the time it's just browsing Craigslist or some other online advertising platform specifically tailored to pot growers and sellers.
Your best bet and this is if you know what you're doing (by which I mean, you are growing some high-grade shit), you can directly speak with dispensaries/clubs and see what they think or how much they're willing to pay for your pot.
There are some ways to advertise your produce. Most of the time it's just browsing Craigslist or some other online advertising platform specifically tailored to pot growers and sellers.
Your best bet, and this is if you know what your doing (by which I mean, you are growing some high grade shit), you can directly speak with dispensaries and see what they think or how much they're willing to pay for your pot.
Sounds like quite a fun business to start. As this is an online board you don't have to answer this, but I bet many people doing this don't even have an LLC (or whatever the American equivalent is) setup, so... no taxes ;)
Reply to Question Ironic. That it has caused your mental illness that prevents your employability that requires the money to pay for the medication to enable you to function that makes you continue the habit that caused the problems in the first place. I guess you see the irony of this yourself when you say It looks like I've made a full circle for the matter.
The greatest expense here is not merely the fact that your mother has suffered and perhaps that a number of wonderful opportunities have in all likelihood been missed, but that your experience of the world will remain profoundly limited by these illusions.
Ironic. That it has caused your mental illness that prevents your employability that requires the money to pay for the medication to enable you to function that makes you continue the habit that caused the problems in the first place. I guess you see the irony of this yourself when you say It looks like I've made a full circle for the matter.
The greatest expense here is not merely the fact that your mother has suffered and perhaps that a number of wonderful opportunities have in all likelihood been missed, but that your experience of the world will remain profoundly limited by these illusions.
Oh, you've misunderstood me entirely. The mental illness started before any of these hobbies started in the first place. So, no, the pot or the stimulants were not the cause of the illness. More like a form of self-medication.
Reply to TimeLine I disagree. I'm not a pro-drug person, but I think precisely because he has got into this, Question has access to some unique opportunities (including business), that, for example, I don't, and probably neither do you.
In fact, in virtue of being in a thing that many would stay away from, he's literarily at the cutting edge of an industry that could, if laws change, potentially explode in growth. He's also probably very knowledgeable about medicine, plants, herbs, etc. with regards to mental illness, another cutting edge industry.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 19, 2017 at 12:46#787750 likes
It looks like I've made a full circle for the matter. I really wish I could just dump the habit; but, the psychological addictive component is already there. The proverbial monkey on the back won't go away. So, I've made up my mind to not play around anymore with designer drugs and just stick to a prescription for Concerta and just stick to that.
Oh, you've misunderstood me entirely. The mental illness started before any of these hobbies started in the first place. So, no, the pot or the stimulants were not the cause of the illness. More like a form of self-medication.
One who is susceptible to such mental illness has a greater propensity to either trigger or indeed worsen the symptoms of something like schizophrenia. It always astonishes me how one so intelligent could lack such intelligence when it comes to taking control of his own life; such incredibly low self-esteem.
In fact, in virtue of being in a thing that many would stay away from, he's literarily at the cutting edge of an industry that could, if laws change, potentially explode in growth. He's also probably very knowledgeable about medicine, plants, herbs, etc. with regards to mental illness, another cutting edge industry.
Be very careful in looking to make cash off a plant that still remains in Federal legal jeopardy.
It always astonishes me how one so intelligent could lack such intelligence when it comes to taking control of his own life; such incredibly low self-esteem.
Whoa...easy on the judgement of others until you have walked in their shoes.
Mmmmmmm I am going to walk away before I say something that I might regret. >:O
Caring about people' feelings is irrelevant if the facts are clear. He refuses to face the facts because he is emotional and you are trying to care, albeit doing a really bad job of it.
I wish I organized all my files and stuff in regards to the research behind marijuana, but a quick rundown is that cannabis high in THC can hasten the onset of schizophrenia and psychosis. There is another major component of marijuana (one of many) that prevents the risk of having or possibly even developing schizophrenia. That cannabinoid is called CBD. I specifically try to avoid strains high in THC and low in CBD for the matter.
There's plenty of scientific literature out there that point out that Cannabis high in CBD as well as THC negates the psychosis-inducing effects of THC. So, what I'm growing in my backyard is called ACDC, it's a strain of cannabis that is very high in the ratio of CBD to THC.
To put the nail in the coffin, there's also research, though I don't have any meta-studies on the matter, that THC alone does not increase the predisposition to becoming schizophrenic. I can occasionally smoke pot high in THC and not experience any negative effects, as long as I'm in a safe place and alone. Being with people and smoking pot overwhelms me so, I try not to do that with people despite pot being quite a social drug.
Anyway, to just end my monolog, it's not true that Cannabis is solely responsible for schizophrenia in individuals with the predisposition. Furthermore, if one IS schizophrenic, then one can consume cannabis safely if it is cannabis low in THC and high in CBD. So, there.
Reply to Question What you say above is almost genius when it comes to bullshitting to yourself. You are indeed correct to point out that it is impossible to reason with emotions because every attempt would be deflected by some form of justification, something that will make you say 'aha' to yourself and enable you to cling onto that self-deception as much as a neo-Nazi would tell himself that the holocaust never occurred or perhaps a man telling himself that he doesn't love a woman he deeply cares about because of some reason or another. Anyway, to end my monologue, it is sad that your experience of reality is thus, a haphazard and aimless glimpse of the potential you are actually enabled with. I don't see someone who can endure physical pain as proving strength, but one who is able to face subjective pain and take charge and control.
The conviction is strong in this post. Are you really that against marijuana? Its a harmless plant with fascinating potential to treat a whole range of medical ailments.
Sad the kind of people that feel the need to shove their own self-deceptions on others, as if rationalism was anything but the greatest self-deception.
Reply to Question It is not a harmless plant and while under controlled conditions can be used for medicinal purposes - just like cocaine - recreational use particularly for those susceptible to mental health disorders, as you are, is extremely dangerous and proven to increase the risk of worsening the symptoms. There are multiple reasons for it being unethical and to agree with you would be wrong.
It not a harmless plant and while under controlled conditions can be used for medicinal purposes - just like cocaine - recreational use particularly for those susceptible to mental health disorders, as you are, is extremely dangerous and proven to increase the risk of worsening the symptoms.
The truth is that most schizophrenics engage in recreational drug use as an attempt to self medicate. It's part of the illness, so you can lay off the moralizing, as if that'd be an effective way to control the disease. You're also doubtfully correct about much of what you say. His condition will likely be as it will be regardless of the pot he smokes or doesn't smoke. He's already acknowledged that's it's brought him to being declared disabled, so your two cents worth about how he ought to deal with this must come across as fairly useless.
The truth is that most schizophrenics engage in recreational drug use as an attempt to self medicate.
That is like saying that most cancer patients smoke cigarettes as an attempt to self medicate. There is no moralising here, it quite simply is unreasonable and lacks intelligence, paradoxical considering that he is highly intelligent and yet incapable of looking after himself.
That is like saying that most cancer patients smoke cigarettes as an attempt to self medicate.
Well, many do, but the cigarettes are filled with marijuana.Quoting TimeLine
There is no moralising here, it quite simply is unreasonable and lacks intelligence, paradoxical considering that he is highly intelligent and yet incapable of looking after himself.
Again, his getting high now and again is the least of his problems. Do you recall his sharing with you that he is schizophrenic?
Again, his getting high now and again is the least of his problems. Do you recall his sharing with you that he is schizophrenic?
It is not the least of his problems, it is his problem. He already acknowledged that it brought him to being declared disabled, as you yourself said, and if he has the capacity to sustain an intelligent conversation, clearly he has the capacity to reason, so what you say is irrelevant.
Reply to TimeLine Your whole points are laughable at best. You remind me exactly of the Communist bureaucrats. They too cared only about what is rational, and didn't care about feelings at all. That's why communism was such a fucking hell-hole.
Caring about people' feelings is irrelevant if the facts are clear.
This is precisely how totalitarianism is born. If your child starts smoking pot, you'll go hysterical 'cause the facts are clear. You know, I suggest you fuck the facts.
It is incredible how smart people can sometimes be so heartless to say idiotic stuff like this.
And by the way selling something illegal isn't necessarily unethical. Maybe it's illegal to sell a medicine which can save a woman's life, but you sell it nevertheless to save her. Is that unethical? What kind of bullshit ethics has Kant shoved in your brain?
It is not the least of his problems, it is his problem.
Since pot use is worse than schizophrenia, would you be in favor of treating pot abusers with schizophrenia if that could be done and it were shown effective?
I'm done with the stuff now. I'm not very good at moderation when it comes to substances. I'm better at reaching maximum saturation in the shortest time possible.
I've a friend who suffers from debilitating back pain stemming from a spinal injury she suffered some years ago and medical marijuana is the safest, cleanest, most effective drug available that enables her to live a productive, fulfilling life without the need to crawl into a ball and cry herself to sleep because of the pain. Medical marijuana is of course legal in Canada, but were she in many American states, she wouldn't be able to be treated like she is now. She would probably be in more pain, be in worse overall health, be shelling out multiple times more chunks of change for other, less effective pain medications, and all for what? Ethics aren't defined by the law. Anyone suggesting that illegality in itself = immorality is completely off their rocker.
So when a government agency regulates a substance and prohibits its sale, that decree comes from Mt. Sinai and it is thereby immoral?
I never heard of a commandment thou shalt not smoke weed but clearly the consistent use of faulty reasoning is a rather regular habit for those in defence of drug-use. Again, your comments are irrelevant.
Since pot use is worse than schizophrenia, would you be in favor of treating pot abusers with schizophrenia if that could be done and it were shown effective?
Where was it ever said that pot use is worse than schizophrenia?
I think she's saying that it's unethical to break the law.
There are a number of serious dangers inherent to buying, using and selling illicit drugs notwithstanding the epidemiological and the legal and clear evidence shows that marijuana has adverse effects on those who are susceptible to mental health disorders. Since Question is experiencing the debilitating effects of a very serious mental health disorder, to ignore such research is irrational and it would be wrong of me - if I actually cared for Question rather than cared for my own emotional and personal beliefs on the subject - to endorse his continued substance abuse that research has shown worsens his specific pre-existing condition. He is capable of reasoning as he is highly intelligent so it is not pointless of me to express this disconcertment of his inability to take care of himself and improve his condition.
Nope. You stated that the illegality of the use made it immoral. The two are not logically interconnected. The fact that a legislator says something is illegal or immoral is what is irrelevant.
A paranoid schizophrenic who smokes pot doubtfully has a worse prognosis than one who doesn't.
Research:Additionally, reductions in cannabis exposure were related to improved patient functioning. Conclusions: Reducing cannabis may be directly associated with improvements in anxiety and functioning, but not other specific symptoms.
One study on specific symptoms has no bearing on the amount of cannabis used by individuals and the differences of cognitive functioning that enable some people to be more susceptible to its adverse effects than others. The study is also not longitudinal so not good enough.
There are a number of serious dangers inherent to buying, using and selling illicit drugs notwithstanding the epidemiological and the legal and clear evidence shows that marijuana has adverse effects on those who are susceptible to mental health disorders. Since Question is experiencing the debilitating effects of a very serious mental health disorder, to ignore such research is irrational and it would be wrong of me - if I actually cared for Question rather than cared for my own emotional and personal beliefs on the subject - to endorse his continued substance abuse that research has shown worsens his specific pre-existing condition. He is capable of reasoning as he is highly intelligent so it is not pointless of me to express this disconcertment of his inability to take care of himself and improve his condition.
I have to declare an interest here as an ex drug-crazed hippie, But I think you have the right of it, by and large. Schizophrenia is already a condition of being 'pretty far out' , and what is wanted is more so a good trip guide than additional stimulation. The distinction between legal and illegal drugs is a bit of a side issue.
I have to declare an interest here as an ex drug-crazed hippie
If I had to guess, I wouldn't have guessed you were a drug type of guy. You seem very intelligent and self-controlled. Typically people who abuse substances have a lesser degree of self-control.
ACT therapy would be additional. Only so far a good and healthy attitude can get you. Often times physical pain will override sheer positivity.
I have a friend who works with patients in chronic pain (generally nothing can be done to stop their pain, similar to your friend) using ACT, and apparently it's more effective for some than straight CBT, MBSR or prescribing things like anti-depressants and painkillers. But it is true that it does require some effort from the patients, and it does take significant involvement with a therapist to adequately get the patients to apply mindfulness and CBT principles while actually dealing with the pain.
It's an interesting one. I like to think that we can handle any pain - or at least should be prepared to do so. As a child/teenager the worst pain that I just couldn't handle was stomach pain. Muscle pain, back pain, teeth pain, broken bones etc. wasn't much of an issue to me. The worst pain was probably when I got a stomach infection, constant pain, couldn't even sleep for several days because of the pain (fever + diarrhea) even though I was extremely tired. It was kind of a mind-numbing experience. That sensation of your head falling down, but yet not being able to sleep because of the pain was hellish. And I don't know, there's something about stomach pain that makes it completely different from other types of pain and it just feels much worse for me.
Lately however, I seem to be a lot less troubled and better able to deal with pain when I get things like stomach aches. I seem less sensitive to them, and feel more in control. I was actually surprised last time it happened, that I could bear it with relative ease compared to before. I do eat very healthy nowadays though. I have also been obsessed in my life with managing pain, not being overcome by it, resisting it, etc. Looking for ways to become stronger - that's been one of my main focuses for a long time, and not complaining while under pain. So I guess that plays a role too.
I have to say that I'm more fond of using cannabis as a safe outlet to quell my urges. Namely, instead of going out and getting smashed by alcohol to desensitize an oversensitive mind, I tend to use cannabis as a safer alternative to entertain myself.
Obviously, in a perfect world it would be best not to indulge in any mind altering substances; but, we obviously don't live in a perfect world.
Furthermore, the THC in cannabis makes one quite paranoid and suspicious in certain individuals, and I fall in that category too, I try and limit my exposure to the safety of my domestical before bed at night when my mind seems to pick up more so than during the day.
Finally, schizophrenia is co-morbid with many other disorders like depression, anxiety, and ADHD. So, there's a lot going awry with the schizophrenic. I guess it's a form of self-medication that helps sooth the mind in where exploitation is the norm and one is a broken 'product', to begin with.
Reply to Question Yeah, it's a strange one. I was reading some people experience spontaneous remissions of it.
I've been diagnosed as a teenager with OCD, hypochondria, generalised anxiety disorder (GAD). Granted how I've evolved, I think the diagnoses were wrong. In fact proving my doctor wrong was one of the things that most motivated me. In my experience, you can get identified with the label, and then you actually do start feeling that way permanently. It's like flipping a switch in the brain. Imagine looking at a red ball, and suddenly the ball isn't red anymore, but yellow. That's how the change feels.
And it depends from person to person. I used to be very hypochondriac as a teenager, but I've studied diseases a lot, and as my understanding of the body grew, suddenly I wasn't hypochondriac anymore. To me, it was perfectly rational. I mean if you don't understand what can go wrong with your body, what the symptoms would be, what you need to watch out for, etc. how the hell can you not be afraid? I always thought most people are just stupid - I mean they're ignorant as fuck, unaware of all the dangers that surround them. Most doctors would say that's not normal, blah blah blah, but they're judging based on the "average" person (have no clue how they determine that in truth). Well, I'm not the average person, and it turned out that it was exactly as I thought, after I learned and studied, I wasn't afraid anymore.
I have an aversion to psychiatry, to begin with. There's a great deal of pressure to find a label to diagnose the patient with and prescribe medication for the condition or disorder.
I'm still waiting for more objective tests, such as genetic testing that can in some objective manner remove the subjectivity surrounding psychiatry of making a diagnosis on people.
I have an aversion to psychiatry, to begin with. There's a great deal of pressure to find a label to diagnose the patient with and prescribe medication for the condition or disorder.
I'm still waiting for more objective tests, such as genetic testing that can in some objective manner remove the subjectivity of making a diagnosis on people.
If I have to be very honest with you, I do feel a lot of so called "mental illnesses" are made up by doctors. Most people do have lots of weird quirks and stuff. If they actually went to a doctor and honestly spoke about all of them, they'd exit there diagnosed with something for sure. On the other hand, some people do have serious conditions, but the way they speak about them to their doctors (not telling the whole truth, lying) they don't get diagnosed.
To me it's quite simple: if you can function (that is defined quite simply as being able to take care of yourself, cook, clean, etc. being able to interact with other people without raging, yelling, screaming, insulting, etc. being able to earn an income (that doesn't have to be a traditional job though, or something that involves some other activity that you don't like - for me driving would be such an activity for example, so if I had to work as a driver I'd actually go insane), being able to engage in productive activities which bear fruits and that you enjoy) - then you are normal. Doesn't matter if you like to arrange your water bottles at night for 10 minutes, etc. those are relatively insignificant, so long as they don't prevent the functioning mentioned above.
Reply to Question I was stoned for a year straight one time so I'm an expert. Pot isn't addictive. You'd be able to stop if your symptoms started flairing wouldn't you?
I had some dealings with new onset schizophrenia (when I worked for a children's hospital). Do you hear voices?
My skin got so soft and clear, and I look like five years younger than I did last year, lol. All of my harder muscles are softening. The definition is leaving my forearms and calves (which used to be super defined), and softening. I've gaining strength and mobility quickly. I was swinging around on the monkey bars at the park yesterday quite easily. Plus super easy climbing the whole playground thing. I feel nearly weightless. I still get winded from running around, need to heal my lungs from all of the smoking, which will likely take a bit. I've seen that they can repair lungs with a machine pretty quickly once they have been removed for a transplant. I imagine that breathing exercises will do the trick.
I love showing off my speed as well. No one has seen anyone as fast as me. I'm twice as fast as a rattlesnake. Four at least, sometimes five strikes a second with one arm. You can barely detect my movement, and as long as they aren't telegraphed you wouldn't even have time to flinch before I hit you twice.
Just like in argumentation though, I prefer countering. My reflexes, and everyone's sluggishness makes this not a risk for me, and being attacked makes me feel justified in retaliation. I thought someone was going to attempt to hit me awhile ago, and was ready to take their fucking head off when they tried, but unfortunately it was all posturing.
Not only are they slow as shit, but most people swing their arms, only landing with their two weakest, outside knuckles, and I could just take that without receiving much damage.
You know that movement speed is directly correlated with confidence?
Taoism: Harmonious Action. This can be observed in a bamboo stick. Watch it bend with the wind: it overcomes the wind by yielding to it. If it were stiff, it would break because it's so brittle, but because it yields, it overcomes. Thus, weakness produces strength, and strength produces weakness.
Reply to Baden I did that two years ago, and I'm better off now because of it. I quickly found a better job. It was risky, and maybe I could have gone about it in a better way, but it paid off.
So, expect more positive research in regards to the medical use of marijuana to maintain demand also for therapeutic use for all sorts of problems unrelated to immunological disorders like Crohn's disease or psoriasis, cancer, etc.
The mention of psoriasis had me flummoxed for a moment, but then I remembered that stress can aggravate it. Fortunately, my psoriasis is limited to the scalp, and coal tar shampoo is very effective.
Caring about people' feelings is irrelevant if the facts are clear. He refuses to face the facts because he is emotional and you are trying to care, albeit doing a really bad job of it.
I happen to believe that "caring about peoples feelings" is never irrelevant and can be quite valuable in life. As far as my actually caring about Question? I could give a flying fig what your perspective is on it as there was no "trying" involved, it genuinely comes from my heart to him.
Good golly. That is beautiful on so many levels that one wonders if some level of enlightenment could be reached by contemplating it. The symmetry, the colors, birth and death and rebirth. It is filled with serene silence and dynamic energy both. Thank you very much for sharing that! Definitely frame-able.
I could give a flying fig what your perspective is on it as there was no "trying" involved, it genuinely comes from my heart to him.
Trying is to adequately reason how your actions will enable the greatest positive change rather than indirectly being motivated by a psychological egoism.
Good golly. That is beautiful on so many levels that one wonders if some level of enlightenment could be reached by contemplating it. The symmetry, the colors, birth and death and rebirth. It is filled with serene silence and dynamic energy both. Thank you very much for sharing that! Definitely frame-able.
The ram is a symbol of virility so it seems to say: this is where it ends, beside a clump of grass in a scotch pasture, so what were you afraid of?
Reply to Mongrel
(Y) There is quote whose author i can't quite remember: "Death approachs on fearful monstrous wings, but when it reaches you, its kiss is sweeter than a lover's." (A giant stuffed panda doll for anyone who correctly guesses the author. I'm sure that is not the exact quote, but hopefully close enough.) Or maybe as another saying puts it: death is the opposite of birth, not of life.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 20, 2017 at 18:21#791910 likes
Nothing is moving outside not even the birds. All you can hear for miles is the dry dust swirling into Dirt Devils as we enjoy another day in the Desert Southwest.
It's kind of annoying how everyone steals from me, attempts to manipulate me, and then attempts to find some flaw, some chink in the armor, in order to come back around to be the good ones. The righteous ones. Vampire sucking my blood, while insulting the flavor. Taking every opportunity to misunderstand, misinterpret, and exaggerate everything and anything I say, in order to be the good ones while kicking me, and stealing from me.
Oh, way better recollection of details, I must always have cheat sheets at hand, that's what makes you better. Fuck you Daniel. You get ignored forever now, but you won't do the same. My blood is too delicious, and you're a fucking leech.
That nonsense above signifies that I'm loosing interest in everything that I used to like... it's all seeming so poo lately. Getting close to moving though, going to go view a place today, hopefully that goes well and I get it. I'm really looking forward to moving to (omit name of place is probably best), nothing to do around here
It's kind of annoying how everyone steals from me, attempts to manipulate me, and then attempts to find some flaw, some chink in the armor, in order to come back around to be the good ones. The righteous ones. Vampire sucking my blood, while insulting the flavor. Taking every opportunity to misunderstand, misinterpret, and exaggerate everything and anything I say, in order to be the good ones while kicking me, and stealing from me.
It's actually cool today, like 14c or something. Quite nice. Took my mom to get her nails done. Waiting at my sisters for people to get home to view a trailer.
I was listening to this guy, and I don't know. This Jung stuff is quite inane I think. I'm not a big fan of Jung because his whole mythological reinterpretation of religion combined with his psychologism makes everything very mushy. Like if religions really only point to psychological aspects of ourselves, then what the fuck is the world fundamentally? If religions and metaphysics are just symbols for understanding our own psychology, nothing external, then it's really not that fucking interesting to tell you the truth. Unconscious, archetypes, etc. why does it all matter, unless, we can pinpoint the nature of the world, and what place this unconscious, etc. has in it. Otherwise it seems to be besides the point, it effectively drains all the meaning out of metaphysics and religion.
Left the AC on max and just got back in town after a week. House was at absolute zero. My computer operated at super speed and I calculated pi until I found a repetition. Stepped outside and my face melted in the 500 degree Georgia breeze, leaving an imprint of my melancholy sigh on the driveway. A frog jumped into a small crevice between my street and curb seeking coolness in the pits of hell. @Sapientia arrived, playing badminton against Atilla the Hun, remarking how he was catching a chill, it being so much cooler than the face of the sun.
Found a friend. Held him tight. Cursed the day for taking my face.
The pet sitter said my cat was friendliest he'd ever met. Being a pet sitter, that means he's met many. To all those who have questioned her greatness, apologize.
Not with cash, I was paying it off, and from buddy I was working for. I didn't want to live there, I took it for the security of owning a home in another three years or so. Instead it trapped me, and I'm paying like 2k a month on gas with the two vehicles. Plus just the nickle and dining of buying more expensive local stuff out of town. It just costs me way more to live in a shithole. I won't really even make that much less with a shittier job cutting those expenses.
Maybe I over reacted. I just felt like the vulnerability I showed was immediately capitalized on, and I ain't gonna lie, it hurt. I claimed to be able to take the few billion small cuts, and I can't just turn a blind eye to everything that offends me, no matter how much. I attempted to frame it covertly enough to not inspire any retaliation, but so that they'd know that I meant them.
I can be so fragile. Never mind the spiteful comment. I'm over it.
I'm pretty super happy. I got the place, and will begin moving in immediately. Spending a year in silence stoned in my room pretty much just made everyone else keep to themselves as well. For some horrible fucking reason, God laughs at me, and makes everyone copy me, and being shitty makes me destructive... unfair, unfair.
On the up side, now everyone is communicating with everyone else again! Brought my mom to my sisters a couple times in the last couple of days. Hanging out with her new BF, a psychology student taking his masters. He's a shy, quiet, apologetic guy, that is terrified of reptiles... wrong family to get involved with, lol. But they hadn't spoken in like a year. Even my little sister sent a friend request to my mom on facebook, so they'll hopefully be mending things soon as well. Everyone is super stoked to get out of this shit hole.
Oh, out of the middle of no where with things to do... I'ma start moving my stuff right away. My sister went to spend the weekend in Edmonton with her BF and eldest, so Dad has the twins, and I kind of don't want to leave though, particularly on the weekend, in case someone shows up here, and I don't want my dad escalating things.
I'm feeling great though, spending time around everyone constantly, and as long as I telling them my horrible opinions all the time, I don't feel the need to escape! Plus, my health is getting better and better everyday. Probably mow the lawn here, like I've been putting off, but promised to do.
I don't plan to try to start roofing immediately, I'd prefer to get a job where there are peers, and women. People my own age. You really only relate well to people your own age, because you have a hell of a lot of the same cultural influences, and understand each other the best.
So, yeah, that's what's been going on with me. Fun fun, silly willy.
So you get to decide whether or not you want to partake in a monetary society? You get to decide what government you're born into and are a citizen of? You get to will whether or not you have to pay taxes? lol
What would the world look like Eggcartus if we installed @TimeLine behind the buttons of power? :s She'd be smokin' her hashish while talking to some female servants (because she has trust issues), poor @Question would be in a rehabilitation camp to be trained to be a rationally autonomous agent who obeys the authenticity of his dialectical subjectivity by not growing pot, while us two would be slaving away in a gulag, forced to listen and recite TimeLine's essays in order to be capable of becoming "real men", not boys >:O >:O
Yeah, I tend to tune out when he gets into the Jung stuff, as I find that very muddled and smacking of the perennialism I have come to loathe. But he's still one of the few professors who is actively taking a stand against radical left wing campus politics and postmodernism. That's his real bread and butter, IMO.
Yeah, I tend to tune out when he gets into the Jung stuff, as I find that very muddled and smacking of the perennialism I have come to loathe. But he's still one of the few professors who is actively taking a stand against radical left wing campus politics and postmodernism. That's his real bread and butter, IMO.
To be honest, I've grown to appreciate Jordan Peterson, he's certainly better than 95%+ of famous intellectuals you find out there today. There's a lot one can learn from him, and there's certainly a huge amount an average young person could learn from him (life-changing). At the same time, I still don't think he's "the real deal" either (his book Maps of Meaning is unnaturally expensive, and he is a very salesmany kind of guy in an indirect way too)
When you listen to, for example this (a very interesting debate):
You see that Peterson doesn't really have much bread to offer. He claims to be a Christian, but as a Christian he would count as a heretic very easily. The point being that his mythological/Jungian interpretation of religion empties religion of all significant meaning. If religion is just a set of symbols doing nothing more than describing our own psychology (and psychological development), then it is useless. It's useful merely as a pragmatic tool, but useless in answering the big questions: why are we here, where is the world going, what is our purpose in the world, and how should we live. The whole purpose of religion (and metaphysics) is to go beyond our own psychology.
I don't mean to say there isn't any truth in the mythological approach, there certainly is, and religion is certainly symbolic, but it's not something purely psychological. You can find the same ideas and better in Voegelin & Girard. The problem with Peterson is that he's ultimately a psychologist - not a philosopher or a mystic.
his book Maps of Meaning is unnaturally expensive, and he is a very salesmany kind of guy in an indirect way too
Yes, I was turned off by the price as well. I tried reading a little bit from his book and couldn't follow it very well either. He's a better speaker than writer, it seems.
Marketing via twitter. You put some tweets up and then start tweeting at other people and organizations. Then start getting followers. It's like starting a cult.
It's 6:15 am and 91* headed up to 115* a real cool front is blowing through eh? From here we will be adding in the humidity to get to July 13th is my guess, when the Monsoons kick in. Yippee! :-!
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 25, 2017 at 13:14#807770 likes
Left the AC on max and just got back in town after a week. House was at absolute zero. My computer operated at super speed and I calculated pi until I found a repetition
Good Lord I cannot even IMAGINE the AC bill. I mean I can calculate it but I don't want to scare ya! O:)
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 25, 2017 at 13:16#807780 likes
I'm pretty super happy. I got the place, and will begin moving in immediately. Spending a year in silence stoned in my room pretty much just made everyone else keep to themselves as well.
This is awesome to read Wosret! You did well in taking that leap of faith!
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 25, 2017 at 13:29#807820 likes
OMG and my Dad in Chicago is able to walk with a walker AND get in and out of my Uncles car. (Y) So he is allowed to leave the care facility for 2 hrs at a time! FREEDOM for a man who never thought he would feel the summer sun on his head as he rode down the highway. Such an amazing feat for someone with Parkinson's!
However, his wife? Who (no love lost here) was confident that my Dad would never be able to come home again to his condo, that he pays for but she lives in? Well she is having to find an excuse for every time he wants to come home for an hour. She is 3 for 3 on convincing him that he cannot come home on three different days but my Dad is very suspicious in nature and oh my my my..... >:O
Twitter is a funny space 378 million users up from 317 million last year. There are 48 million bots that tweet, which means you might be following an algorithm and not a human. A cult of faux personality, which is why Trump fits right in.
Reply to CavacavaReply to Mongrel Trump is old. It takes time for him to catch up with technology. He got into twitter when it became big, so he kept on going.
Reply to Agustino There is an indisputable correlation between income and years of education. There are also links to educational level and longevity, not to mention living an easier life, surrounded by a different type of person.
So yes, it is that useful, despite your not yet seeing it.
Reply to Hanover Maybe Hanover, however the average differences are petty. If you make 90K vs 40K it's not that big of a difference. If a degree got you to make 300K/yr sure, it would be useful but otherwise...
I understand why you think this way, you're a lawyer (if Im not mistaken), and for your profession University is a must.
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 26, 2017 at 01:59#809350 likes
Yes, even that wouldn't be a big difference because the sums in question are still relatively small. It's like telling me make $1 dollar or $5. Sure, 500% difference, so what? It's fucking $5 for God's sake, it's not gonna be anything big. People are deceived by percentages - one of the MOST common ways to be deceived in today's world.
People think "Hurr hurr" I'll get that college degree, I'll make 40% more income :s - yeah if you're lucky, because not everyone who gets that college degree will. But what's the point? You're being stupid. You're going to work so hard to make just 40% more? :s If income is your criteria then you should be asking yourself how can I make 300K/year? If you're going to work hard at making an income, at least that's the kind of numbers your should aim for. And college most certainly ain't going to be an answer to that.
Now if you want to go to college because you're passionate about something - say philosophy - or you really want to be a certain profession - like a doctor or a lawyer, which absolutely requires a college degree, then sure, go for it. But otherwise if income is your sole criteria, you're just being a retard.
Depends where you live. For the US/UK that is still a relatively small amount. For Eastern European countries, Russia, etc. that's a hefty amount already - like around $100-150K would be in US/UK.
But generally that's peanuts. Most people don't understand that, because they think in terms of salaries. Salaries aren't what you should be considering, but rather earning potential. Even some of my very small clients make $50K per year and more in revenue from their businesses (and these are literarily some of my smallest clients). Now of course that's revenue, not profit, but revenue indicates earning potential. If they grew their businesses significantly, they would be able to capture a larger percentage of that too.
Depends where you live. For the US/UK that is still a relatively small amount.
I live in the UK, and it isn't a small amount.
But, of course, you've thrown in that term "relatively" that could make your claim trivially true. Relative to a millionaire it's a small amount, obviously. But relative to someone earning $40,000, it's a lot.
For a person it isn't, but for a business it's nothing. As I said, I'm thinking about earning potential, not salaries, or the fact you can buy more expensive lip stick, or shoes or bullshit like that. That's still pennies. If you make $100,000/year you're not rich, not even close. Rich means having sufficient money to be able to use it to direct the course of your society - like George Soros. Everything else is pennies, it's not a lot of money.
But relative to someone earning $40,000, it's a lot.
:s give me a break, if I earned 40K I wouldn't lift a finger to be able to earn 80K, as it would make no difference. You can live just as well with 40K, because you live smart and under your means, just as you can with 80K. That's not going to make a difference to anyone. To put additional effort would require my earning potential to be much larger, so that I would actually have what to do with that extra money.
For a person it isn't, but for a business it's nothing.
But we're talking about a person earning $90,000 instead of $40,000, not a business earning an extra $50,000 (which would still be a lot for a low-earning business).
:s give me a break, if I earned 40K I wouldn't lift a finger to be able to earn 80K, as it would make no difference. You can live just as well with 40K, because you live smart and under your means, just as you can with 80K. That's not going to make a difference to anyone.
It's going to make a different to a lot of people, even if not to you. I, for one, could seriously do with an extra $50,000 (or, rather, the equivalent £39,255.71).
It's going to make a different to a lot of people, even if not to you. I, for one, could seriously do with an extra $50,000.
What would you do with it? >:O Let me guess... apply for a mortgage, get a new, bigger and more expensive house, buy a nicer car, etc. you think that is anything but pennies? :s
I know some people who earn ~80K/year, and they're absolutely not living better lives than me, and I don't earn even close to that.
What would you do with it? >:O Let me guess... apply for a mortgage, get a new, bigger and more expensive house, buy a nicer car, etc. you think that is anything but pennies? :s
What makes your 3-room flat so terrible that you absolutely have to move out of it? Do you think moving out of that flat is the key to your happiness?
It's tiny. Far too small for two of us, a dog, and a cat.
And I don't know why you're asking if I think it's the key to my happiness. I haven't said it was. I said that $50,000 isn't a small amount, and that it'll make a difference to a lot of people.
It's tiny. Far too small for two of us, a dog, and a cat.
And I don't know why you're asking if I think it's the key to my happiness. I haven't said it was. I said that $50,000 isn't a small amount, and that it'll make a difference to a lot of people.
Yeah, that kind of money would make that kind of a difference for me too. But I'm aware it's not a significant difference, and it is ultimately unimportant, more of a luxury than anything else.
Reply to Agustino If $50k is so small and you can live off $40k, save the $50k every year, and you'll have $1m in 20 years. Assume an investment rate of return of 5% compounded annually, and you'll be a multi-millionaire in just 20 years. Since you live so cheaply, as you noted, you could live off interest alone fully retired at 40 years old.
Of course, your claim that $40k versus $90k is insignificant only points to your lack of actually living in the world, having a family, and having all sorts of bills unrelated to an extravagant lifestyle.
None of this addresses the other issue which was the crux of my comments to Wosret, which was that he could elevate his life situation if he got a college degree in terms of dealing with a better sort of person and having a more stimulating job. It's not just about money. An office job beats roofing for many reasons.
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 26, 2017 at 10:31#810150 likes
give me a break, if I earned 40K I wouldn't lift a finger to be able to earn 80K, as it would make no difference.
Yeah, I know you, we've been through this before, money doesn't motivate you to do anything, only force does. You don't lift a finger without being forced to do it.
If $50k is so small and you can live off $40k, save the $50k every year, and you'll have $1m in 20 years.
Yeah, in 20 years $1m will not be that significant even. I'd have to invest that $50k and risk it, otherwise inflation will be eating it out like a bitch, especially as the lump sum grows. And making additional $50k every year in a job will take a lot harder work, which is not worth the effort for the reward. You won't be working 9-5, you'll be working 9-9 >:O - I have a few friends doing that right now in fact. Let's see if in 10 years they'll be better off than me.
Of course, your claim that $40k versus $90k is insignificant only points to your lack of actually living in the world, having a family, and having all sorts of bills unrelated to an extravagant lifestyle.
Well I didn't know that I'm living on Mars. No I don't have a family, but the bills are absolutely not that difficult to cover, and I have built some savings already. The bills only become difficult to cover if people are stupid, get a mortgage, etc.
Except that a job at an office has little possibility for explosive growth, unless you're working in an industry like IT/tech, or one of the leading firms in fields like pharmacy. You'll be stuck slaving away there your whole life, but there's more interesting things you should be doing with your life.
Assume an investment rate of return of 5% compounded annually, and you'll be a multi-millionaire in just 20 years.
A 5% annually compounded interest rate for 20 years will get me to a meagre 1.7 million, so definitely not a multi-millionaire. And that's assuming that I get those 5% interest AFTER INFLATION compounded annually over 20 years, which is not that bad of a return for an investment, and I don't get wiped out in an economic crisis.
People don't actually get this, but investments aren't a way to become wealthy, they're a way to stay wealthy when you already have many millions in the bank. If you just throw in your 50K pennies, it ain't gonna make a big difference for you.
To be a multi-millionaire in the real sense of the term you need high earnings, not 1 million in the bank. What does high earnings mean? Starting from 300K/year or 25K/month - that's when you start being financially powerful.
Look at this:
Why do you think Buffett isn't outperforming the S&P500 that much anymore? The more money you have the more difficult it is to beat inflation and compound at high interest rates. Those who are already rich love playing this game and talking about economic growth, etc. because that's THEIR growth.
When you're poor, what you should be looking for is explosive growth, not petty another 50K/year, ain't gonna make a big difference.
Yeah, I know you, we've been through this before, money doesn't motivate you to do anything, only force does. You don't lift a finger without being forced to do it.
It would motivate me, if the additional work would have the potential of getting me big earnings, but for another 50K, it's not worth the bother.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 26, 2017 at 12:02#810320 likes
Simple question:
Could you work with your spouses parent 3 days a week?
Inherent risk located: any negative spoken about the In Law is obviously something your partner will wholeheartedly accept. Nope. Somehow my fault.
Lesson learned? Blood is thicker than water.
Problem? I thought I learned this lesson a longggggggggggggg time ago and would have remembered how powerful it can be.
Seriously disappointed in thyself.
Proud of being able to remain Stoic in front of my 17yr old indian, while fielding criticism when I really wanted to break down crying.
Returning to work? Yes
Happy about it? Teaching a work ethic to my indian is far more important than any criticism of me or my spouse as an adult.
Breathing.......getting there....
Reply to Agustino Nothing you say makes sense. The only thing you accomplish when you present such arguments is damage your credibility in future discussions.
Inherent risk located: any negative spoken about the In Law is obviously something your partner will wholeheartedly accept. Nope. Somehow my fault
Lesson learned? Blood is thicker than water.
You've been married over 20 years and have 2 kids with him. You're not water. I've never heard this expression mean that "blood" only meant those actually in the blood line instead of including all family members, which obviously you are.
I'm looking forward to the Mayweather Mcgregor fight. I don't follow fighting super hard, or know all that much about them, but I think that Mayweather's speed is intimidating. He's at least as fast, if not faster than I am. Mcgregor isn't, but he processes a technical prowess. He is quiet intelligent, and has impressive analytical skills. He has tight achilles though, which is why he isn't as fast, and a shit upper chest and collar bone, holding way too much weight in his goddamned cobra like neck.
I also notice that he loosens his left hand sometimes when striking, losing alignment on impact, turning it into more of a palm smack. None of this matters all that much though, when you're as smart as he is. Logic is all about timing, and he is great at timing.
There is also the age difference. Negative experiences are remembered much better than positive ones (presumably you have more to learn from them), so the older one gets, the more hesitant, the less bold.
My lack of money is still on Mayweather though, just because I favor speed and instinct over analysis.
Fuck, lol! I just set the oven to pre-heat for 5 minutes, put my pizza in to cook for 8 minutes, then, once that time had passed, went to take out my pizza, only to find it cold and uncooked, because I forgot to set the temperature. And I'm not even stoned.
Reply to Sapientia Not a disaster, happened many times. One time I was really hungry, put the pizza in, and then hurried to take it out, and I dropped it on the dirty floor face down............... >:O
Reply to Agustino A similar thing happened to me only a couple o' weeks ago. I bought a pizza from Aldi, and when I went to take it out of the oven, the base completely collapsed and the whole thing fell apart and went all over the floor and down the sides of nearby stuff in my kitchen.
The funny thing is, I still picked up bits from the floor and ate them. And I still have dried up bits of pizza mess in that place.
That's not that terrible if the floor is relatively clean. In my case it was actually dirty, as in visibly dirty, so I had to throw it away and cry >:O - cause there was no other thing to eat in the house.
Reply to Agustino The floor wasn't clean enough, really, but I didn't eat the bits that were covered in visible dirt. I was also really hungry and there was also nothing else to eat in the house for me at the time, and my options were limited because it was really late at night, or rather, early in the morning, and nearby shops and takeaways were closed.
I'll clean it tomorrow. Unless I can't be bothered and think to myself "I'll clean it tomorrow".
Reply to Sapientia I put a pizza in the oven, went to watch a bit of TV till it cooked, and then 42 minutes later remembered I'd put a pizza in the oven.
Metaphysician UndercoverJune 26, 2017 at 23:51#811850 likes
It would motivate me, if the additional work would have the potential of getting me big earnings, but for another 50K, it's not worth the bother.
Some might wish they were in your shoes, where 50K wouldn't even pay for the additional work of lifting a finger, but I'm happy to flip the bird for free.
That's not that terrible if the floor is relatively clean.
The sort of "dirt" that one needs to worry about exists abundantly within the category of "relatively clean" or even "very clean". The 5 second rule doesn't work (if you retrieve it from the floor in 5 seconds, it's OK to eat). Any pathogens on the floor transfer on contact--they don't need time to crawl on board your slice of bread, pizza, grape, pork chop, whatever.
That said, you probably won't get sick and die from eating food off a floor that is beneath "relatively clean". Bacteria, pollen, poison dusts (like lead dust) and so forth drizzle onto our bodies all the time. We inhale and swallow this stuff continuously. Of course, every now and then we get sick and die, too.
You've been married over 20 years and have 2 kids with him. You're not water. I've never heard this expression mean that "blood" only meant those actually in the blood line instead of including all family members, which obviously you are.
You have lived a blessed life Hanover to not have ever encountered the "blood is thicker than water" phrase. I have known it for decades as it often explains why a Step Parent will side with a blood child before they side with their current spouse, regardless of who is right.
The study ought to be called "why do lies mind fuck people", but no, they expect their deceptions to have no long term effects whatsoever, and if they do, it must be because you're flawed or defective.
Got to attempt to change a spark plug today, and then fuel filter on my truck. When I went to get the fuel filter, they were like "what time of the year did it come out? Spring, or fall? The filters are totally different!", and I of course didn't know that, so I just got both, I'll figure it out.
I took the plugs to a buddy to get them changed on the cheap cheap, but it ended up costing more, by letting anyone else do anything. Firstly I let my Dad go and get the spark plugs, and explained what ones they'd try to sell him, and not to get those, but different ones. He got the ones I didn't want, and that was in the fall. I figured they'd still fit, but nope... totally wrong ones. I didn't have receipt either by the time I found that out.
These trucks are annoying to change the plugs on, they oxidize, and can only withstand 25 lbs of torque without breaking. So, figured I'd get someone with experience, but he broke them, so had to buy the kit I didn't want to, and then he broke one of the new ones putting it in... so I got another one... it would have ended up being cheaper if I had have just taken it to a garage to begin with. Although the cheapest option would have been for me to have just done it all myself...
Going to do that today, and then start moving my stuff... hopefully I don't fuck it up too... lol
They particularly are so ridiculously full of deception, and use their "white coat" (sometimes gray, but still equally ominous, I assure you) positions of authority to be believed without evidence or experience, and then expect their deceptions to have no lasting effects whatsoever.
They particularly are so ridiculously full of deception, and use their "white coat" (sometimes gray, but still equally ominous, I assure you) positions of authority to be believed without evidence or experience, and then expect their deceptions to have no lasting effects whatsoever.
You're saying this kind of research amounts to entrapment?
I'm sure that the motivations are pure. A lot of these things can be reduced to a personal lack of responsibility, or, simply having a conclusion in mind from the get go, and attempting to confirm it.
Reply to Wosret What occurred to me is that studies of this kind tend to use college students. They're not too far out of childhood. Obviously that's not the way to say something about humans in general.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff I actually do have step siblings and a step parent. I understand your analogy, but there's a difference between the divided loyalties that exist when someone is trying to combine two families versus a spouse refusing to cut his ties to mommy.
Also a certain type of person shows up for those, not just anyone and everyone from every walk of life. You know that researchers have literally hid under their beds in order to catch them in their natural environment as well? For science!
Immigrants are usually stronger than natives. It impacts the course one takes establishing a path through the property jungle. This way takes you toward a bunch of native greenbriar, which feeds the local wildlife unlike the beautiful but invasive english ivy. A rare moonflower is growing in that direction.. so the path becomes a discriminatory march against immigrants.
Part of the problem is that it's not like you can just plant some moonflower seeds and expect a crop. They don't even sell seeds for that kind of moonflower. You could try to transplant one, but that frequently is just a laborious way to kill a plant. That's generally true of natives. They're fragile.. maybe because that's part of the balance that was set up by the evolution of this biosphere.
Frankly, I have heard enough of truths. In fact, I have heard soo many truths that I am about to lose my mind however I fear that has already happened. I cannot look at a historical car without my mind starting to part out the car and guesstimate costs/profits.
Cool side effect of my new job right?
Not at the expense of all the other important shit that used to fill my brain that is currently falling out as I learn about yet ANOTHER Bezel on a Corvette.
Yes. A lot of the immigrants here are Chinese. North America and China were once connected so there are a lot of plant types that the two regions have in common. The Chinese versions usually edge out the native ones. It doesn't make much difference usually.. except in the cases where the native species feed wildlife and the naturalized immigrants don't.
The sort of "dirt" that one needs to worry about exists abundantly within the category of "relatively clean" or even "very clean". The 5 second rule doesn't work (if you retrieve it from the floor in 5 seconds, it's OK to eat). Any pathogens on the floor transfer on contact--they don't need time to crawl on board your slice of bread, pizza, grape, pork chop, whatever.
That said, you probably won't get sick and die from eating food off a floor that is beneath "relatively clean". Bacteria, pollen, poison dusts (like lead dust) and so forth drizzle onto our bodies all the time. We inhale and swallow this stuff continuously. Of course, every now and then we get sick and die, too.
Absolutely unlikely to die from such stuff. Kids put their fingers in dog shit, and all the dirty parts of parks, and as far as I see, they're still surviving. However, obviously it wouldn't be a good idea to eat that if the place was very dirty. But if it's relatively clean, no problem, just chug it down your throat mate!
Kids put their fingers in dog shit, and all the dirty parts of parks, and as far as I see, they're still surviving.
True. When I was a kid we played in the dirt a lot, and swam in a creek shared by cattle. Children with allergies and asthma were kind of unusual.
One of the theories about the increase in prevalence of allergies and asthma is that children are being raised without enough exposure to dirt. It is the seemingly paradoxical result of overly-clean environments for children. Children's immune systems don't get sufficiently challenged by normal 'dirt allergens' so that as they grow up they are sensitive to too many ordinary substances.
Of course, there is a limit to the beneficial effects of dirt, but infants who grow up with a dog in the house and are allowed to play in actual dirt have healthier immune systems and fewer allergies.
True. When I was a kid we played in the dirt a lot, and swam in a creek shared by cattle. Children with allergies and asthma were kind of unusual.
One of the theories about the increase in prevalence of allergies and asthma is that children are being raised without enough exposure to dirt. It is the seemingly paradoxical result of overly-clean environments for children. Children's immune systems don't get sufficiently challenged by normal 'dirt allergens' so that as they grow up they are sensitive to too many ordinary substances.
Of course, there is a limit to the beneficial effects of dirt, but infants who grow up with a dog in the house and are allowed to play in actual dirt have healthier immune systems and fewer allergies.
Yes, I agree with much of this, and I've noticed similar things myself. Having grown up part of the time at the countryside I can say this is very much true in my experience.
Of course, there is a limit to the beneficial effects of dirt, but infants who grow up with a dog in the house and are allowed to play in actual dirt have healthier immune systems and fewer allergies.
I have seen studies showing that ulcerative colitis (an immune system disease affecting the large intestine) was initially more prevalent in the northern US than the southern, although both are about the same now. It was believed that the cause was the cleanliness of the north versus the dirtiness of the south at the time, and one current form of treatment that is being considered for the disease is probiotics, which is the introduction of additional bacteria into the system, although that is still in the experimental stage.
Some problems with any theory that posits that lack of pathogens are the cause of a weakened immune system might be (1) decreased pathogens occur in more industrialized regions, which also would be better at documenting the incidence of disease, (2) the industrialized region might be healthier for those with normal immune systems but worse for those with hyperactive immune systems, and (3) those who limit their access to pathogen friendly environments might be being responsive to an already apparent condition.
With regard to #1, it might be simply that the incidence of illness in both clean and dirty environments is the same, but it's poorly documented in dirty regions and the dirty people are simply going undiagnosed.
With regard to #2, you can't discount the suppressive (and ironically, normalizing) effects of a pathogen infused environment on a hyperactive immune system. There is a lower incidence of ulcerative colitis (for example) among smokers than non-smokers, suggesting that the poisons of cigarettes are normalizing the hyperactive immune system.
With regard to #3, it might simply be that you've noticed that the asthmatics are shut in their homes because they have had adverse responses to the running in daisy fields as opposed to the suggestion that their asthma is being caused by their refusal to go outside and smell the daisies.
Don't get me wrong, I'm fully supportive of any theory that advocates playing with dog shit, but I'm just offering up some other considerations.
Okay, but those represent bacteria which have a positive role inside the gut in breaking down food. Probably most bacteria you encounter in dirt don't have this role :P . Most of the bacteria contained in probiotics are also found in dairy products. In fact dairy products are our most common source of probiotics. One yoghurt a day keeps the doctor away ;)
Also I would doubt that probiotics contribute to the strength of the immune system. Rather they are good for your gut's health.
(a) Rationality is an ill-defined quality. I sat with an Economics student in a philosophy class earlier in the year, and she and I could find little correlation between philosophical rationality and economic rationality. The arguments are often about ends, and ends are usually about premisses.
(b) I feel sympathy for Wosret's view. Interestingly, improved ethics makes it harder to test whether the knowledge that 'the subject' is being experimented on has an effect on outcomes, as it's unethical not to tell people they're being experimented on.
Also I would doubt that probiotics contribute to the strength of the immune system. Rather they are good for your gut's health.
No body knows for sure what exactly is in probiotic pills -- they are not regulated. There are beneficial bacteria in yoghurt. Yes, they are good for the gut. But, there are perhaps 10,000 different bacteria in the gut, and some of these bacteria seem to be useful in constructing / maintaining the immune system. However, research on this has just begun.
Patients suffering from C. difficile bacteria (a variety that comes to the fore after the gut bacteria have been wiped out by very strong antibiotics.) It causes severe ulcerative colitis, and patients can die from it. It doesn't respond to antibiotics -- it's just too resistant. However, a cure has been found:
C. difficile is kept in check by the actions of the normal gut flora which the patient no longer has. What to do, what to do?
On a hunch, and a little research, it was discovered that an injection of fecal matter (aka shit) into the gut by enema brought some C difficile infections under control in 48 hours, and eliminated it in a few more days. A company has been set up (naturally; nobody every went broke underestimating...) to collect fecal donations, process them (mix with water and run the crap through a sieve to remove the suspended solids) and put them in an attractive bottle, which recipients will not be horrified to look at.
The FDA has not approved the therapy, but hasn't forbidden the procedure, either.
It's also been found that when the fecal matter of fat rats is fed to rats who were bred to be thin, they get fat--despite their lineage. The opposite has also been found. Chronically fat rats fed the fecal matter of thin rats lost weight quite quickly (other factors being the same).
I am taking your three-point theory under advisement.
(a) Rationality is an ill-defined quality. I sat with an Economics student in a philosophy class earlier in the year, and she and I could find little correlation between philosophical rationality and economic rationality. The arguments are often about ends, and ends are usually about premisses.
What's more, economics assumes that people are rational only when they act as egotists. I should be more specific and say that this applies to game theoretical reasoning.
VagabondSpectreJune 28, 2017 at 00:37#816740 likes
It's also been found that when the fecal matter of fat rats is fed to rats who were bred to be thin, they get fat--despite their lineage. The opposite has also been found. Chronically fat rats fed the fecal matter of thin rats lost weight quite quickly (other factors being the same).
Reply to Bitter Crank If dining on skinny folk shit resulted in meaningful weight loss, it'd be on the menu everywhere.
Alright, personal question. As a gay gentleman, I'd suspect you've found yourself dangerously close to fecal ingestion even if consisting only of minute remnants from a less than tidy partner. If my suspicions are correct, can you verify whether your weight began to correspond with your partner's soon after the escapade.
Alright, personal question. As a gay gentleman, I'd suspect you've found yourself dangerously close to fecal ingestion even if consisting only of minute remnants from a less than tidy partner. If my suspicions are correct, can you verify whether your weight began to correspond with your partner's soon after the escapade.
I think this is the first time you've said something that actually makes me feel sick.
It's also been found that when the fecal matter of fat rats is fed to rats who were bred to be thin, they get fat--despite their lineage. The opposite has also been found. Chronically fat rats fed the fecal matter of thin rats lost weight quite quickly (other factors being the same).
I see. So, if I consume the fecal matter of thin rats, then I will become thinner. Or a thin rat. It's worth the gamble. Where can I get ahold of this stuff?
Interesting. So we can't really do research about that kind of topic?
Well, I'm guessing, but extrapolating. I was doing a bit of reading on placebos earlier in the year and ethics have shifted so that in theory you've got to know you might be getting a placebo in a test. I doubt doctors are actually following this rule but the ground has certainly shifted. I was especially struck by some research among doctors, who confidentially reported high use of secret placebos to arrive at a 'psychogenic' diagnosis, e.g. an amazingly high number of people's 'movement disorders' in the USA (15 to 25% of those attending clinics) are supposedly psychogenic, and much of this supposed level arises from dishing out placebos instead of real pain-killers or anti-inflammatories or whatever. (Of course this also says something about a weird level of suspicion by doctors of their own patients)
What's more, economics assumes that people are rational only when they act as egotists. I should be more specific and say that this applies to game theoretical reasoning.
Completely agree, that was the economist-woman's point to me, but of course it made me too reflect on what hidden premisses might lie behind 'philosophical' or 'psychological' or any other version of 'rationality'. There are some hidden assumptions for instance behind a criticism of confirmation bias as 'irrational'. It often makes sense emotionally to accommodate oneself to how things have turned out, but in many of these psychological accounts the 'emotional' somehow has to be redescribed as 'cognitive' before it can become an acceptable explanation.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 28, 2017 at 11:50#818100 likes
It is immoral to bring anti-natalist threads into being without their consent; they are inevitably miserable recitations of global negativity, third rate apologetics and unconvincing protestations that life is good really. It is your solemn duty as moral beings to refrain from contributing to them.
an amazingly high number of people's 'movement disorders' in the USA (15 to 25% of those attending clinics) are supposedly psychogenic, and much of this supposed level arises from dishing out placebos instead of real pain-killers or anti-inflammatories or whatever. (Of course this also says something about a weird level of suspicion by doctors of their own patients)
There's a pretty significant drive to cut the American population down on both narcotics and anti-biotics. I'm wondering if it's in the light of that that doctors could get away with sneaking placebos?
Reply to Lone Wolf
Just checking out the never boring Philosophy Forum. And the strange thing is... anyone reading this sentence... is doing the same thing right now. Freaky! Giving me goosebumps. :-O
Haha, I'm also doing boring work, surprise surprise! :P All work ends up boring in the end, because all work involves some kind of repetition. It's in the nature of the beast... Even something creative like designing - still have to pick a color scheme every time, still have to select fonts and look over and over again at the same popular fonts, etc. So even if the work involves creative elements, it will always also involve repetitive elements...
Reply to Agustino That's simply not true. When I'm working on a reply, such as this, for example, there are never any repetitive elements. Repetitive elements just don't form part of my creative process. If you were to examine my work here, you may rest assured, you'll find no repetitive elements. None whatsoever. Repetitive elements, that is.
That's simply not true. When I'm working on a reply, such as this, for example, there are never any repetitive elements. Repetitive elements just don't form part of my creative process. If you were to examine my work here, you may rest assured, you'll find no repetitive elements. None whatsoever. Repetitive elements, that is.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 30, 2017 at 16:49#825940 likes
My Dad cannot breathe and they have checked out his pacemaker, they did an Echocardiogram and all is functioning as it was the last time they checked and it was fine, had a Nuclear med induced stress test yesterday and won't get the results until today, maybe Monday. He says he feels like he did before he got his STENT which likely means the STENT has closed up or his fuck it all attitude about his Diabetes has killed off enough veins that support the heart that nothing can be done short of a bypass maybe? I don't know the "next" and Mom who was a charge nurse in Cardiac ICU before she went to Hospice is either shielding me from the possibilities or cannot face them herself. No matter what I know that Dad has said No more. No more surgeries, no more STENTS, no more anything but he has said this before and when it came down to it, he had the new pacemaker put in. But now they haven't been able to tell us what is wrong, only what is right and that is not an answer.
I argue people who say life sucks and then you die. My reasoning for my position is crumbling out from under me at moments like these.
I'm guessing some will nod in (silent) agreement, and others will respond with "righteous anger" against, yet others...
So it goes.
But what do you think?
I argue people who say life sucks and then you die. My reasoning for my position is crumbling out from under me at moments like these.
The results are in and it's not my Dad's Heart this time. So with 97+% oxygen rate and clear lungs, they are sending to him Primary to see about blood tests to check for Anemia. Anemia? Are you kidding me? The man cannot breathe...people turn and look when he is breathing....he sounds so short of breath...it makes no sense. :s
Approval of GOP's Trumpcare should reduce number of poor people substantially, if they can't afford insurance they simply will not survive.
They didn't have insurance historically. When they're sick, they go to the hospital. Hospitals eat the cost. It would be cheaper if they'd go to a regular doctor, get healthy diet, etc.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 01, 2017 at 00:06#826850 likes
That is exactly where I would expect him to be but no, he is at home. Mom reminded me that he has Stage 3 Kidney Failure which begs the question why the hell isn't he in the hospital now?
How does this all end? I mean I know what the end looks like but how does it get from Stage 3 to 4? Does a patient suffer?
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Chronic kidney disease is pretty common. People can have it for years. It can be a cause of breathing difficulty. It can result in too much water in the blood vessels. The lungs are like sponges. They can get water-logged when there's too much fluid. Lasix is a drug they might give. There are a lot of other causes of breathing troubles, though.
But if your Mom is a nurse, I'd think she'd be able to pick up on whether he needs to go to the hospital or not. He's oxygenating well, so that's a good sign. When is his appointment to see his doctor?
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 01, 2017 at 00:31#826900 likes
Monday is his appointment and they have a lot of Lasix on board already. They say his lungs do not sound wet but he cannot breathe and has gained like 30 lbs since January. His has been a diabetic for some 25 yrs and has at times let it get so out of control he called me with blood sugars over 600. Mom said he could have died.
If Lasix doesn't work what do they do?
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff There are other drugs they might try, but dialysis is also an option. If they're saying his lungs don't sound wet, I don't know what it is. Probably best to wait for the lab results. See what the doctor says.
Someone remind me, what's the exact phrase that goes something like 'reality is richer than all of what can be dreamt up by your philosophy' or something along those lines. It's a well known line, I'm just can't for the life of me remember the exact wording.
Edit: I got it, it's from Hamlet: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
There are other drugs they might try, but dialysis is also an option. If they're saying his lungs don't sound wet, I don't know what it is. Probably best to wait for the lab results. See what the doctor says.
Mongrel, Thank you from the bottom of my heart for all the questions of mine you have fielded over the year (maybe years) as I realize you never volunteered for the job. Lucky you huh? (Y) I have a tendency to gravitate towards people who will be as truthful with me, as best they can. There is an understandable risk in talking to people in a definitive way when it comes to the health of a loved one and there is no greater security to me, than to have someone in the medical community speak to me with the frankness in which I ask the question. I am sure you have come across my kind of question when I have dire concerns and need a Doctor or Nurse to answer me in the vein of "What would you do if it was your loved one?" "Would you do the same thing if I was your Granddaughter?"
Again, Thank you~
You mean Stage 3 Kidney Disease? I've never heard of it called as stage 3 kidney failure in my part of the world, and I'm quite literate for a non-doctor.
I mean I know what the end looks like but how does it get from Stage 3 to 4?
The filtering mechanism of kidneys degrades more, that's how it advances. Then your body is no longer capable to eliminate toxins. It naturally degrades anyway, but generally diets high in sodium (salt), protein, and calcium (milk/dairy) speed this up. So do kidney diseases, kidney stones, diabetes and high blood pressure (a very big one).
I myself had quite a lower level of GFR and creatinine on the high side (for my age anyway) last time they were checked, but I have no other symptoms (proteinuria, etc.) that would be sufficient to diagnose me with CKD or indicate that I'm at risk of it. No kidney stones either.
They say his lungs do not sound wet but he cannot breathe and has gained like 30 lbs since January.
Well, when people say that, they usually mean that they have a feeling of not getting enough air, or wheezing, etc. There's a lot of things that can cause such feelings including heart issues, arrhythmia, anxiety, lung diseases/conditions, anemia, carbon monoxide poisoning, etc. Have they measured his blood oxygenation levels? If his blood is oxygenated, then likely his lungs are working fine, and the problem is somewhere else. You can measure it yourself if you buy a pulse oxymeter from the pharmacy :P . Readings above 95% are considered normal. But even if his blood oxygenation is normal, that doesn't mean that there are no issues. In case of anemia and carbon monoxide poisoning for example you'd also encounter high readings of oxygenation levels, but still experience such symptoms.
The results are in and it's not my Dad's Heart this time. So with 97+% oxygen rate and clear lungs, they are sending to him Primary to see about blood tests to check for Anemia. Anemia? Are you kidding me? The man cannot breathe...people turn and look when he is breathing....he sounds so short of breath...it makes no sense. :s
Hmm I just saw this now, didn't move on the previous page until now. Yes, anemia can definitely cause such symptoms. If there's not enough hemoglobin cells to carry oxygen around your body, then even if your heart is pumping right, and your lungs are oxygenating right, then there will not be enough oxygen going around, and you will start feeling short of breath.
Think of it like this. Your hemoglobin cells are like railcars. Your heart is the engine of those railcars. And your lungs are the factory where the railcars get their goodies from. The railcars need to transport a certain level of goodies in order to supply for everyone who needs them (that is the rest of your body). So maybe there's not enough railcars (anemia - low hemoglobin). Maybe the right goods are replaced with poisonous goods (such as carbon monoxide poisoning). Maybe the engine of the railcars isn't working well - so they don't get around the body (that's the heart). Maybe the factory doesn't produce enough oxygen (that would be the lungs). Or maybe the control centre (the brain) fires off the wrong signal (can happen with a variety of conditions, including very often psychological ones, such as anxiety disorders). These are some of the possibilities that can account for shortness of breath. Oh - useful thing to remember is that blood oxygenation is measured as a percentage of railcars (hemoglobin) that are full, and are passing by wherever you have the pulse oxymeter placed (typically the finger). It doesn't matter what they're full with, whether it's oxygen or carbon monoxide. But that's what it would indicate. Say 97% of hemoglobin are carrying something. So you can imagine the conditions where you'd have a high level of SpO2 and yet still have a problem using the metaphor above. Anemia for example would be one of them.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff That does not sound good! I hope he gets better soon. I cannot offer any advice because I do not know much in terms of that disease, but all I can say is that I feel for you!
For fun... see that guy in the display picture of your latest video mindsmash? Notice how his elbow is rotated out to the side? Think about how the elbow moves if youre a quadroped. Or how to do a proper push up. Most of these dudes seem too worried about having sweet abs, and what they look like. Or always better to look good than be good someone once told me, and i came to notice is a quite prevalent philosophy for life...
Theyre all holding their abs tightly in, and you can see how his chest is sunken in, with just the visible big chest tendon, and deep armpits. If you can see a tendon, then thats a weak spot. See your supposed to hold the ribs in, bush the top abs out and hold the bottom ones in, chest up. Because theyre pulling them in rathet than pushing them forward, it makes them reach out at the extremity of their reach. People with guts hit harder because their weight is lower and going forward rather than higher, and being pulled back. It makes them commit more, and unable to stop quickly (if you want to increase your speed then train stopping power). My dad is 300 lbs 6'3 and i hit harder than he does. When buddy rotates his elbow out like that and takes his largest muscle group out of it, and fails to channel the return force into the center line, he has no follow through.
See its mainly just the left side thats the problem, the left low ribs. Probablyy because thats where eve came from... lol
Because of our fishy ancestey the nads develop under the stomach and then decent, leaving a cavity in the left core about the size of your forearm. Buddies explains this in the book your inner fish. I imagine that this is why males require more intentional effort to maintain balance. Prolly something like that.
You know that if you hit someone just above the heart, in just the right place, at just the right time and usually while theyre below the age of like 25, it will stop the heart. Happens all the time in sports. Baseball the most.
I have a vacuum where my heart ought to be. It sucks out the life force of my opponents where it then spirals for eternity in the darkness. You can tell my past opponents from their sunken eyes and expressionless affect. It happens the most in baseball.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 01, 2017 at 22:57#828510 likes
Maybe the right goods are replaced with poisonous goods (such as carbon monoxide poisoning).
Thank you so much for your explanation Agustino, I do appreciate you taking the time to explain to me the possibilities and some of the pitfalls but the quote above I am just not understanding. Why would Carbon monoxide be present in the cells? I understand it from experiencing a house fire but not in regards to the blood.
I feel very naïve in all this but once I 'get it' I am solid in understanding "it", whatever "it" is. Though I would not deny a fog in my understanding when it comes to my loved ones. For someone who leads with their heart, logic is a tool that is not at the ready to deal with issues like this.
Whatcha talking about Wos? He is a healthier Monster which I am sure you appreciate his efforts and Cookies are a once in a while treat! You have to understand my fancy for the blue furry dude (L) Let Cookie Monster live!!
"One no longer asks if a man is upright, but rather if he is talented; nor of a book if it is useful, but if it is well written. Rewards are showered on the witty, and virtue is left without honors. There are a thousand prizes for noble discourses, none for noble actions.” -- Rousseau on societies that greatly value scientific and artistic progress.
I love hiking and today after dropping off my bike for repairs, I did a trail hike for a couple of hours and a bit of photography, coming across this wishing tree. There were some cute, funny and serious wishes on the tree and as I continued on, I found myself consumed by the notion. What would I wish for? I have yet to make a decision.
I wish I could post star trek gifs more often, because they would save a lot of time and effort trying to write out what could otherwise be summed up in an image.
Reply to Baden The best wish I saw was "I wish for a dog, or a penguin, or a mini dinosaur." I suspect keeping it a secret would make it come true. I just can't seem to think of anything I would wish for. It baffled me for a few hours.
And ta very muchly. I themed it a bit vintage to suit the hippy environment.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 02, 2017 at 14:43#829680 likes
Reply to Michael I guess so lol... I only set my profile when I created my account here, and never bothered to change it after. But you're right, it feels like it's gone by quite fast :s
Reply to Agustino No more Witty or Schop I see. I'm surprised by Aquinas in their place. An Eastern Orthodox whose favorite philosopher is Aquinas is rather amusing. Nice quote from him, though.
Haha, did I ever have Schop there? :P Yes, I took Witty off because I've been less impressed by his (and Hamann's) view of language as time went by - and the indirect realism or antirealism that (can) emerge from it.
Well, I thought who I can put, and I was a bit puzzled. Who do I really agree with from the whole history of philosophy? And there weren't many names that came up. Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine (you could also add Kierkegaard and Pascal amongst those whom I've considered). And from those I guess I agree most with Aquinas (and Aristotle).
Definitely not Kant - I've started to think quite negatively about Kant, a lot of postmodernism traces its roots back to Kant.
An Eastern Orthodox whose favorite philosopher is Aquinas is rather amusing.
Why so? :P It's not like the Orthodox reject Aquinas - he's been standard teaching for many Orthodox through the centuries. (although it is true we don't consider him a Saint). The only point is that Orthodoxy goes beyond the rationalism of Aquinas and the Catholic Church and has a richer apophatic tradition. That's why Aquinas isn't given such centre stage position in Orthodoxy, because he's too scholastic, too kataphatic. But as a Christian philosopher? - I don't think you can get better than Aquinas.
Whatever you wish for will only come true by injuring another, like if you wish to live forever, a certain number of babies will instantly die in their mothers' arms to give you their life years. That's how it always works. Always.
Reply to Hanover That is precisely what boggled me, although I am not sure about why babies would instantly die to give me life ( :-} ). What can I actually wish for without the consequences backfiring in some way?
I am in support of it (largely), but I don't think it's a very effective ad. What makes it unconvincing is that it's too categorical, and appeals too much to strength rather than compassion.
I am against the media, Hollywood, and the Academia - and the progressive-leftist movements, but they cannot be stopped except by taking back precisely the institutions that they control. The media, Hollywood and the Academia determine the education of the nation, and hence its values. Whoever controls those institutions has the future in their hands.
Definitely not Kant - I've started to think quite negatively about Kant, a lot of postmodernism traces its roots back to Kant.
I've seen this claim before. Do you know what sources you got this from or did you just reason to this conclusion yourself? I think Kant would be appalled by postmodernism, though I suppose that doesn't mean he couldn't have indirectly and unintentionally paved the way for it in some way.
There's a certain narrative that tries to pin the blame for the modern Western world's woes on Descartes's alleged "subjective turn" or idealism or the Enlightenment that I find tiresome. Augustine had much the same and just as many doubts as Descartes. Neo-Platonic thinkers like Pseudo-Dionysius, the Cappadocian Fathers, John the Scot, Meister Eckhart, and other medieval figures can be described as idealists. Even figures like Aquinas who are normally taken to be realists are certainly nothing like the naive or direct realists of today. As for the Enlightenment, there were two strains of it, one moderate, and one radical, so it's silly to bash "the Enlightenment" as if it were a univocal term.
The only point is that Orthodoxy goes beyond the rationalism of Aquinas and the Catholic Church and has a richer apophatic tradition.
I don't think this is true. This whole "Catholicism is Aristotelian, legalistic, and kataphatic," while "Orthodoxy is Platonic, mystical, and apophatic" dichotomy just isn't born out by the evidence, it seems to me. I read the following comments by a Catholic engaged in a debate with an Orthodox recently:
What is the philosophical basis for Catholicism vs. Orthodoxy? I was unaware either tradition could claim one and only one philosophical basis. 19th century Russians were reading Hegel and other Continental philosophers. St. Basil the Great was influenced by Stoicism. Augustine was a Neo-Platonist. Even parsing out these schools in late antiquity is incredibly difficult - the boundaries between the schools were incredibly porous. Nobody was a strict Peripatetic or Platonist. They were all conglomerations who accented different syllables from different philosophical schools.
But what I'll often hear is that Orthodoxy is mystical and platonic, Catholicism legalistic and Aristotelian. This is just nonsense, though. Nobody was reading Aristotle without Plato (or vice versa). The supreme baddie of Orthodox polemics apart from Augustine is Thomas Aquinas (who was otherwise respected in his own time by the Greeks and seen even as an authority by some) and he was reading Aristotle and Ps.-Dionysius. So these categories and distinctions seem to fall apart when examined at all and therefore can only exist to deface real commonalities between the communions.
This is precisely the same line I get fed and every time I press people in Orthodoxy who make this claim to support it, we end up nowhere. The fact is that there are so many counters to all of these within the Catholic Church that it's ridiculous to try to boil down Catholicism to any of these. Do we have dogmas? Yes, of course. Do the Orthodox? Yep. Do the Orthodox simultaneously say that those dogmas are true and Apostolic and must be held? Yep.
If rationality is a bad thing, let's tell all the Fathers. If you think Maximos wasn't participating in the philosophy of his day or using rationality, I don't know what you think he was doing. Same with the Cappadocians. Same with the Damascene. So what does it mean to say that Catholics are "more rational"?
You're right, but there are significant strains of Orthodoxy that really don't like him. Such dislike is often born out of ignorance, but it exists.
If you like Aquinas, have you ever read his Contra errores Graecorum? I've read some of it and it's one of the reasons why I'm more inclined toward Catholicism than Orthodoxy.
I am in support of it (largely), but I don't think it's a very effective ad. What makes it unconvincing is that it's too categorical, and appeals too much to strength rather than compassion.
I am against the media, Hollywood, and the Academia - and the progressive-leftist movements, but they cannot be stopped except by taking back precisely the institutions that they control. The media, Hollywood and the Academia determine the education of the nation, and hence its values. Whoever controls those institutions has the future in their hands.
Well, I wasn't really asking you, but anyway >:O .
I do not think the ad was really meant to prove all leftists wrong (one can't prove anyone wrong in 1 minute), but I think it generally summarizes up what the movement was about. Perhaps grabbing the attention of those who watch it, and prompting them to research it into more depth.
Everyone deserves a say in the media, even though I disagree with most popular media. Their seems to be a developing lack of trust in it anyway, so one way or another, the common news media probably is not going start a revolution. I think the real power is in the hand of who raises the kids.
Reply to TimeLine You can only wish for bad things, that way the backfire will be good. You can play reverse psychology with the cosmos. It will never figure it out. Never.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 03, 2017 at 13:15#831970 likes
Talk about having awesome friends, my eldest Indian was gifted a speed boat by one of my best girlfriends and her husband. She knows that my Indian has a desire to travel to Europe and believes that everyone has their own "journey to experience" so she told him to enjoy it and then sell it when he is ready and put the funds towards his European trip next summer.
How do you Thank someone for something like that?
I've seen this claim before. Do you know what sources you got this from or did you just reason to this conclusion yourself?
I have read some people saying it before as well, but I wasn't entirely convinced. The deeper problem is that Kantianism doesn't give off anything useful at all. That's the conclusion I've arrived at recently, and that's also why I take a grimmer look on it. Quite the contrary, Kant destroyed the possibility of reasoning to the ultimate questions, leaving them a matter of faith, thereby destroying, rather than saving religion. In addition he helped in making truth a matter of subjectivity rather than objectivity - things out there conforming to us rather than we conforming to them.
Augustine had much the same and just as many doubts as Descartes.
But Augustine doesn't make the claim that everything can be doubted, or we should make doubting into a philosophical method. I can't go into detail here, but I had a thread at old PF which cannot be accessed anymore, where I outlined the serious mistakes of Descartes:
Neo-Platonic thinkers like Pseudo-Dionysius, the Cappadocian Fathers, John the Scot, Meister Eckhart, and other medieval figures can be described as idealists.
Yes and no. They were certainly no Bishop Berkeley or Schopenhauer. The Platonists have a wholly different kind of idealism than the "modern" idealisms.
I don't think this is true. This whole "Catholicism is Aristotelian, legalistic, and kataphatic," while "Orthodoxy is Platonic, mystical, and apophatic" dichotomy just isn't born out by the evidence, it seems to me. I read the following comments by a Catholic engaged in a debate with an Orthodox recently:
There is a point to it. Name me someone like Duns Scotus, Aquinas or even Augustine from the Eastern Orthodox Tradition. Maybe Origen, but otherwise not many come close. The Eastern Orthodox Tradition puts a LOT less emphasis on reason, hence the absence of many philosophers in the Eastern tradition. There's a lot of saints, mystics, etc. but not many philosophers at all...
You're right, but there are significant strains of Orthodoxy that really don't like him. Such dislike is often born out of ignorance, but it exists.
That is true. Even those who know him end up not liking him, because Aquinas doesn't go far enough for them. But then in my opinion that's asking too much of a philosopher. A philosopher isn't also a mystic.
If you like Aquinas, have you ever read his Contra errores Graecorum? I've read some of it and it's one of the reasons why I'm more inclined toward Catholicism than Orthodoxy.
Flat footed people are totally not to be trusted... theyre so full of lies and covert tactics... theyre probably responsible for the trope that attractive people are morons. They seem to lack social conscience and a sense of boundaries, but theyre just extremely narcissistic and full of covert antagonism. Theyre like the best liars, and do it so so frequently. God i hate dealing with them...
My trails and tribulations... dealing with incompetent people is one thing, but dealing with incompetence out of super human passive aggresion is a whole other thing.
The deeper problem is that Kantianism doesn't give off anything useful at all.
I care less about its utility than I do its truth. I would only have cause to label it deeply problematic if I thought it were false, but I'm still not convinced that it is, at least not wholly.
Kant destroyed the possibility of reasoning to the ultimate questions, leaving them a matter of faith, thereby destroying, rather than saving religion. In addition he helped in making truth a matter of subjectivity rather than objectivity - things out there conforming to us rather than we conforming to them.
Maybe he did, but then it's useless to complain. You'd have to show why and how he was wrong to think he destroyed reasoning to the kinds of ultimate questions you presumably find to be legitimate.
They were certainly no Bishop Berkeley or Schopenhauer. The Platonists have a wholly different kind of idealism than the "modern" idealisms.
Sure, but you've still granted that they're all idealists, which was my point. And it seems to me that modern idealisms can be considered as different from each other as modern idealism in general is to Platonic idealism. I take phenomenalism to be a kind of idealism, which is almost nothing like absolute idealism, for example, save the fact that they're both idealisms.
The Eastern Orthodox Tradition puts a LOT less emphasis on reason, hence the absence of many philosophers in the Eastern tradition. There's a lot of saints, mystics, etc. but not many philosophers at all...
You're confusing "emphasis on reason" with "number of philosophers." One church can emphasize reason just as much as another and yet not produce as many philosophers. I can agree that the Western Church may have produced more philosophers than the Eastern Church, but there are historical reasons for this that have little to do with each church's "temperament" or what have you. For example, Eastern Christianity has arguably had a much more precarious existence over the centuries than the Western Church. The iconoclasm controversy, the rise of Islam, the Fourth Crusade, the Ottomans, and communists have all threatened to destroy it. The production of philosophers generally requires leisure and societal stability, which the East hasn't had very much of.
Also, be careful not to confuse the form and the content of a piece of writing. The Western scholastics wrote a certain way due to the academic context they inhabited, but the content of their work and its influences are very similar to what we find in the East at the same time.
However, even if it were true that the Western Church emphasized reason a lot more than the Eastern Church (whatever that means precisely), the former could not be said to be any less Platonic, mystical, apophatic, etc than the latter.
The important thing is to resent each other more and more along the lines of our primitive tribal affiliations.
Thanks for posting that ad for inspection. At best, I agree it is extremely manipulative and fear-based. But advertisers know that the only thing that sells more than sex or desire is fear. About your observation about primative tribal affiliations... I would agree somewhat. Our identities of gender, race, religion, "social class", etc. will have a marked influence especially in turbulent times, as people perhaps seek some kind of grounding. But i wonder how strong and unifying these factors actually are. Especially when individualism seems to be the cultural core belief, unspoken or not. For example... say a group gathered that had a very strong homogeneity, such as white Protestent upper-middle class women with politically liberal inclinations, for instance. They would have much in common with each other, but whether they happened to like each other, get along, or accomplish anything is totally up to the particular individuals involved.
Basically, the problem i see with an extreme "us vs them" approach is that the "us" part is infinitely divisible until what is left is more like "me against everyone else". The world is crazy except for you and me, and I'm beginning to wonder about you, as the old joke goes.
Kant destroyed the possibility of reasoning to the ultimate questions, leaving them a matter of faith, thereby destroying, rather than saving religion. In addition he helped in making truth a matter of subjectivity rather than objectivity - things out there conforming to us rather than we conforming to them.
If you don't already know him, you may be interested in Franz Rosenzweig, a Jewish philosopher of the early 20th century. He has a Stanford page. He thought that Kant had - contra the German Idealists who had followed Kant - cleared the ground for the 'new thinking' that Rosenzweig became a leader of. I'm interested in it because it's focused on 'speech', and how speech is particular yet brings us together, and is unique to humanity. But you may be more interested in his threefold view of God, world and self (this is in 'Star of redemption') as the three elements in his system of philosophy, who in their relations with each other advance towards unity through creation, revelation and redemption - a different kind of unity from the Absolute that Rosenzweig thought the German Idealists had mistakenly posited, because such a unity diminishes us in its categorising and socio-universalising.
Reply to Agustino Terrible list. At least it doesn't contain Hegel or Heidegger. The list to pick from is as follows: Socrates, the cynics, the skeptics, the stoics, Francis Bacon, Hobbes, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Marx, Russell, Wittgenstein, G. E. Moore.
Truth and utility are somewhat related. I believe that Plato/Aristotle expressed the same insights, only better and more clearly, than Kant did while avoiding all his mistakes. That's in terms of metaphysics/epistemology cause in terms of ethics Kant is quite terrible in my opinion.
Sure, but you've still granted that they're all idealists, which was my point.
Idealism doesn't have a very unambiguous meaning in the history of philosophy. I think Plato and Aristotle are realists, not idealists for that matter. I think the later dichotomy realism/idealism is useless and incoherent - Wittgenstein was right about that.
And even if they were idealists, so what? I've never claimed that the problem with modern philosophy is idealism.
I can agree that the Western Church may have produced more philosophers than the Eastern Church, but there are historical reasons for this that have little to do with each church's "temperament" or what have you. For example, Eastern Christianity has arguably had a much more precarious existence over the centuries than the Western Church. The iconoclasm controversy, the rise of Islam, the Fourth Crusade, the Ottomans, and communists have all threatened to destroy it. The production of philosophers generally requires leisure and societal stability, which the East hasn't had very much of.
True enough, but I doubt this is the only reason. St. Augustine appeared in quite a difficult and violent period for example.
However, even if it were true that the Western Church emphasized reason a lot more than the Eastern Church (whatever that means precisely), the former could not be said to be any less Platonic, mystical, apophatic, etc than the latter.
I disagree with you here, but wait for me to get back to this tomorrow and I'll write more. But basically both churches are Neoplatonic, but the difference in emphasis and theology has led one of them to be a lot more mystical and apophatic than the other.
If you don't already know him, you may be interested in Franz Rosenzweig, a Jewish philosopher of the early 20th century. He has a Stanford page. He thought that Kant had - contra the German Idealists who had followed Kant - cleared the ground for the 'new thinking' that Rosenzweig became a leader of. I'm interested in it because it's focused on 'speech', and how speech is particular yet brings us together, and is unique to humanity. But you may be more interested in his threefold view of God, world and self (this is in 'Star of redemption') as the three elements in his system of philosophy, who in their relations with each other advance towards unity through creation, revelation and redemption - a different kind of unity from the Absolute that Rosenzweig thought the German Idealists had mistakenly posited, because such a unity diminishes us in its categorising and socio-universalising
Thank you I will look into him, however I must say I've become quite disillusioned with a lot of religious philosophy. There's several problems with it. First problem is that it lacks capacity to move people. Even someone like Thomas Aquinas - his writings are useful to DEFEND the faith, but that's nowhere near enough. That's why religion is losing because it's all defence and no attack. It's useless to have a palace that no one can attack when everyone is ignoring you. Religion needs a Nietzsche - with a philosophy capable of moving people.
Second problem is that it's very dry and not easy to communicate. This is multiplied by the fact that us believers often have a tendency to speak to unbelievers in terms of God wants this and God wants that. That's terrible - basically creates a rift of communication between the two parties.
Third problem is that many times religious philosophies descend into mysticism - which isn't bad in itself - however the issue with this is that mysticism isn't available to most people. So it cannot really be used to communicate effectively. Think Wayfarer for example - very focused on the mystical side which cannot affect many people anyway, and very little focused on the moral side which plays a much more practical and significant role in the everyday lives of most people.
Socrates, the cynics, the skeptics, the stoics, Francis Bacon, Hobbes, Descartes, Locke, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Marx, Russell, Wittgenstein, G. E. Moore
Reply to Agustino I'm a little confused about what's supposed to correspond to what, given that I mentioned fifteen and your reply addresses only fourteen.
Reply to Lone Wolf Moderately interesting. Some of the questions seemed to be real 'sorters'; others, meh. Myers-Briggs influenced--don't see much value in MB.
I think Kant would be appalled by postmodernism, though I suppose that doesn't mean he couldn't have indirectly and unintentionally paved the way for it in some way.
About what? I still subscribe to transcendental idealism, if that's what you meant by "Kantianism." As for why I think it's right, that would require a fairly long and complicated answer I'm not really interested in giving at the moment. Suffice it to say that I accept as important and basic a distinction between appearance and reality and find that Kant's way of couching this distinction makes the most sense while matching my experience of the world. I also don't think it rules out the validity and coherency of certain religious questions, even if Kant himself thought it did. This is because Schopenhauer's system, which completes Kant's philosophy in my opinion, ends in mysticism and impels one toward religion and the asking of such questions. Another reason is that Kant and Schopenhauer were on the whole fairly ignorant of late classical and medieval Christian philosophy and theology, so they never actually refuted classical theism so much as other forms of theism they mistakenly believed applied to such aforementioned time periods.
Idealism doesn't have a very unambiguous meaning in the history of philosophy. I think Plato and Aristotle are realists, not idealists for that matter. I think the later dichotomy realism/idealism is useless and incoherent - Wittgenstein was right about that.
I could grant this. It's an infuriating word at times.
Only okay?! If I had to narrow it down even further, he'd be in the top three, as would Marx, who you think is terrible, if I've understood you correctly.
I'm curious why you think Francis Bacon is terrible - again, if I've understood you correctly. Russell, who you also seem to think is terrible for some reason, wrote that he has permanent importance as the founder of the modern inductive method and the pioneer in the attempt at logical systemisation of scientific procedure.
Suffice it to say that I accept as important and basic a distinction between appearance and reality and find that Kant's way of couching this distinction makes the most sense while matching my experience of the world
Plato and Aristotle made this distinction way before Kant ever opened his eyes - and they made it much better than Kant did. Transcendental idealism relies on subjectivity to make the distinction - on our forms of cognition, which is (in my opinion) crap, compared to Aristotle or Plato, both of whom made the distinction between appearance and reality much more clearly and sensibly by appealing to the immediacy of our senses in contradistinction to the reach (through time) of our reason.
This is because Schopenhauer's system, which completes Kant's philosophy in my opinion, ends in mysticism and impels one toward religion and the asking of such questions.
Schopenhauer's system is nice. But the problem with it is that it's unnecessary. Why do we even need it? Philosophy ends in philosophical enquiry, not in a system, which is why everything returns back to Plato. As far as I'm concerned lately, a lot of later philosophy isn't of much use. I've been re-reading for example Plato's Republic recently, and you can find Nietzsche there, you can find Hume, etc.
Good. But you do claim to be a realist of some kind, though, right?
Yes. But what does this mean? I'm a realist the same way Plato/Aristotle are realists. I simply don't think there's another coherent position. Other positions are language games which can be deflated via Wittgensteinian analysis.
I shall await your post on this, because this, to me, is simply false.
Do you know about the whole tradition of Hesychasm for example? Do you know that Catholics have a negative view of theosis - the goal of mystical practice? That's why Eckhart was deemed a heretic for example. Yes there are mystical movements within the Catholic church - even Aquinas towards the end of his life - but these are much less open or emphasised. Certainly theosis plays no significant role and isn't very developed in Catholicism (and this includes their practice of mysticism). I think you'd benefit sometime during your life from a trip to Mount Athos in Greece, to see and speak with Eastern Orthodox monks. You'll see that the approach is very different. Closer to Buddhism and other Eastern forms of spirituality actually.
Yeahhh, what's so great about him? :s He misunderstood causality, he correctly understood that sentiment plays an important role in morality, and was keenly aware of the limitations of reason. Oh, he also critiqued some bad arguments for religion, and realised that we don't have logical certainty with regards to empirical matters (so what? - everyone already knew this). What's big in that? Is it going to make your life better or what? Hume is relatively unimportant and minuscule in the scheme of things. But he's not bad or terrible. Just not great. There's not much you can get out of him.
Marx, who you think is terrible, if I've understood you correctly.
Marx correctly diagnosed capitalism, however he also misinterpreted the diagnosis. For example, he complained that the bourgeois keep and treat their women as property by pretending they hold to certain moral values, while, behind the curtains actually engaging in the promiscuity that they condemn (this is indeed a problem by the way). BUT - lo and behold, Marx tells us that it's not the promiscuity that is the problem, it is that they're not doing it openly! IF ONLY we had a community of women that all men openly enjoyed, ahhh how much better that would be instead of hiding behind curtains, etc. etc.
Russell, who you also seem to think is terrible for some reason, wrote that he has permanent importance as the founder of the modern inductive method and the pioneer in the attempt at logical systemisation of scientific procedure.
So what? What's the import of those achievements? It's like me telling you that I worked very hard to dig a ditch which is 10,000km long :s
Is science being done faster and better because he systematised the scientific procedure :s ? Or what's the deal?
Reply to Agustino You have some points about Hume, but the example you give in your criticism of Marx is petty and fails to see the wood for the trees. As for Bacon, he was great, as I realise more after reading that chapter on him in Russell's History of Western Philosophy. His four idols, he was scientifically minded, and had a practical basis to his philosophy, focusing on scientific discoveries and inventions, he held that philosophy should be kept separate from theology, not intimately blended with it as in scholasticism, he refined induction from what is called 'induction by simple enumeration', he was hostile to Aristotle for good reason, he objected to any admixture of teleological explanation in the actual investigation of phenomena.
he was scientifically minded, and had a practical basis to his philosophy
Right, so did Aristotle for example. Except that Aristotle was an actual genius who pretty much produced all our known science for over 1000 years including biology, physics, logic, etc.
he refined induction from what is called 'induction by simple enumeration'
The Aristotelians never actually held to induction by simple enumeration btw. Aristotle attributed different degrees of certainty to different sciences, each according to its nature. Induction was never supposed to yield absolutist arguments. So this isn't actually a merit, but quite the contrary, he didn't even understand what Aristotle was saying.
he was hostile to Aristotle for good reason, he objected to any admixture of teleological explanation in the actual investigation of phenomena.
Again, this is completely absurd and not a merit. Teleological explanation is an irreducible part of nature, and it is absolutely required to explain how parts work together to form a coherent whole. Bacon as was common for his time had quite a mechanistic, and WRONG, view of reality.
I edited my reply to specify that it wasn't so much the criticism, but the example you gave. The great wealth of his significance is not about what he thought about women or promiscuity. That's a typical Agustino angle to take on such a great thinker.
Right, so did Aristotle for example. Except that Aristotle was an actual genius who pretty much produced all our known science for over 1000 years including biology, physics, logic, etc.
Yes, his innovations in science and logic make him one of the greats, and form a positive contrast to Plato, but he also got a lot of stuff wrong, and what he got wrong pervaded the thinking of so many that came after him.
Again, this is completely absurd and not a merit. Teleological explanation is an irreducible part of nature, and it is absolutely required to explain how parts work together to form a coherent whole.
I edited my reply to specify that it wasn't so much the criticism, but the example you gave. The great wealth of his significance is not about what he thought about women or promiscuity. That's a typical Agustino angle to take on such a great thinker.
That's not what I said though. I said he correctly diagnosed capitalism, but misinterpreted the diagnosis, and hence the solution he offered is wrong. That's a criticism not just of his views on promiscuity but also on communism/socialism. The promiscuity thing is just an example which means to show that just as he misinterpreted that, so too he misinterpreted our economic troubles.
Yes, his innovations in science and logic make him one of the greats, and form a positive contrast to Plato, but he also got a lot of stuff wrong, and what he got wrong pervaded the thinking of so many that came after him.
Because science and logic are important, and Plato chose instead to make an allegory about a cave, and talk about abstractions.
Yes they are in their relevant fields of study. More specifically they're helpful in allowing us to manipulate physical reality to do what we want to get done, and also as a means of contemplating the beauty of nature/creation. But science ain't gonna tell you what you should want, what will make you happy, how you should behave, or how you can achieve ethical wisdom. Remember that in the Republic Plato is dealing with morality, and he's trying to say that morality is a good in and of itself, and to be truly moral, you need to experience the Platonic vision which reveals to you the truth that is hidden from those in the cave. This allows you to understand both why others are behaving immorally, and also what means (the shadows) you need to employ to educate them to behave morally when they do not see the truth directly.
Plato was by no means "talking about abstractions" simply because he wasn't doing science. He was talking about something far more important than science - how you should live your life.
Reply to Agustino What Plato wrote about ethics and politics is interesting, and these are of course important subjects, but I don't agree with a lot of it, and think that there's a problem with his approach and way of thinking. Someone like Locke or Marx was better on politics, Hume had a better analysis of morality, and the stoics thought about things in a better, more useful, way.
Comments (61561)
*Voices Chomsky*
I just don't think the pendulum swings that hard in the US, at least never to the left that much. Since Reagan, we've been having pretty conservative administrations in foreign policymaking at the very least.
I'm humble about being humble.
Beat that.
If that's the aim of the lawsuit then it seems it isn't that stupid...
LOL - I noticed the crazy rep. of actually too but was too lazy to bother changing it :P
Yeah, if I was rich and could afford to allocate time just to studying philosophy, that would certainly be true. But that's not the case.
You can listen as many times as you want at double the speed. It's hard at first, but ultimately if you persist, you get used to it. Right now things at normal speed seem so slow to me. I'm like how the hell can anyone listen to this lecture at normal speed?! :s
Do you mean that if you were rich you could take the time to study some good philosophy, but since you're not, you settle for bad philosophy? Get the job done quick instead of right?
Despite the press' complaints that Trump is anti First Amendment for his attacks of the press, he's actually not. He's an extreme example of free speech, saying whatever he wants whenever he wants. Complain that he's a runaway train of buffoonery sure, but not that he's restraining anyone's right to blab.
Nobody cares about the facts. Politics is about appearances. If it wasn't, Trump would never have won. So, I'll repeat, it doesn't seem that stupid... :P
Nitrous Oxide...used it for an hour myself last week while having oral surgery.
LOVE me some Nitrous! I just wish I could have a to go bag of the stuff for when the Novocain wears off.
What about urging Comey to jail journalists who published leaked classified info?
It's not the leakers he asked to be prosecuted. It's the journalists who published the info.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Ha Ha - no. I mean that I have to study good philosophy fast since there's a lot of other things I need to do to earn a living.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
Earlier than promised + better than promised = success.
It seems fairly ridiculous to argue that the press isn't free, considering everything that could be said about Trump has been said about Trump. I'd also point out that there's nothing the press loves to talk more about than the press because it's all about them I guess.
Meh, Trump won because the Democrats wheeled out an ancient insider who effectively blocked all comers and figured out how to lose. No one was duped.
I'm not saying that a suggestion of arrest amounts to a violation of the First Amendment. I'm saying that a suggestion of arrest amounts to Trump showing himself to be against the First Amendment.
Of course, just look at my post count. Did my wallet grow, get fatter, heavier, and all the other good shit because of it? :s
If I say "the First Amendment should be abolished" then I'm displaying a robust sense of free speech and showing myself to be against the First Amendment, so what you say above is a non sequitur.
If Trump wants journalists to be jailed for publishing classified information then he opposes the First Amendment. That the First Amendment allows him to say such things doesn't change this fact.
So is it illegal to speak against the Constitution? :s
No. How did you read that from what I said?
Just as well you post at double the speed of everyone else otherwise you'd never get anything else done.
Blah I'm sick today, still heading into work. No cigarettes. Hope I don't kill anyone.
Haha don't be jealous of my multitasking please :P .
I'd be a little surprised if he knows there is such a thing as a First Amendment. If he could bull-dog his way to suppressing free speech, of course he'd do it. He just isn't in a position to. The president of the USA doesn't really have much power (except during war).
So the GOP wasn't fielding better candidates?
I'm in favor of some sort of super-delegate system that will give the party some control over who their candidate is while also preserving the democratic nature of the system. The underreported issue during the primary was how Clinton was anointed, having locked down the nomination before it began. With all the clamoring about how undemocratic US presidential elections are from the left, they were remarkably silent with how they were trying to push a president through without the people really having a choice. Thank the good Lord for Trump having preserved the people's voice. A joke.
This environmentalist, who believes climate change is real and is caused by human activity (I'm not lobbing up a denier here), claims that the Paris agreement was a bad idea and Trump was right to withdraw. He does cringe in having to agree with Trump, by the way. http://reason.com/blog/2017/06/02/bjorn-lomborg-paris-climate-accord
Reason (the website) is a Libertarian site, which I acknowledge for full disclosure.
His point is that the trillions spent under the Accord will offer only minimal reductions in greenhouse gases. He argues the economic impact of allowing climate change to continue without the reductions set out in the Accord will be minimal as well. That is, the Accord will give us very little and it will cost very much.
He suggests that the trillions would be better spent on research and development for greener energies as opposed to the minimal effect from this Accord. It's not that Trump has suggested a reallocation of the money that will be saved from not being a part of the agreement, but it does seem that a reasonable approach is the one suggested by the environmentalist in the article. He also has a very European name (Bjorn), so he should gain credibility on this board from that. I suspect Bjorn wears skinny jeans and tight shirts with all sorts of zippers like any self-respecting European.
I wear Bermuda shorts over my knees, high white socks, white tennis shoes, and a baseball cap because I'm American damn it.
I think even Trump realizes that he can't make up laws. So, if he suggested that Comey arrest those who report on illegally gotten information, he would expect that Comey would have to charge a violation of an actual law on the books. It sounds like Trump was asking what could be done about what he thought was illegal, but I don't think he was actually advocating for Comey to just sort of make up a law and then enforce it, and I doubt that Trump also was considering the Constitutional implications if such a law existed.
I hope you do. I want to see you on the news next to a lawyer with a ponytail and an earring. If I'm on the jury, I'd vote to acquit because you're pretty cool.
You keep dragging the Democrats in to this as if that has any bearing on my point that politics in general (that includes Democrats) is about appearances.
Maybe Trump's trying to be like Lelouch from Code Geass, though I doubt anyone will get that anime reference.
I agree that politics is about appearances. So there's no more to be said about that.
You asked something about whether the GOP had better candidates and so I offered up some wisdom regarding that.
That's just basic chia pet technology.
Oh, come on! You know that both D and R campaigns are often decided before the convention. If there is no heir apparent, and if no prospective candidate had succeeded in lining up potential delegates, then you get an open contest, such as the Republicans had. We haven't seen a wide open convention since... what, Barry Goldwater in 64 (Goldwater was a great speaker)?
That Clinton was anointed wasn't really news, was it? The degree to which party bosses at the national and state levels might have hobbled Sanders' candidacy was probably not a story with legs -- just too tedious to go into. I much preferred Sanders over Clinton.
I think everybody did. But he was a socialist.
Do you guys and gals think that government intervention is needed to guide the economy towards renewables or would that have happened without any government directive/support?
It's essentially a question as to whether the free market and invisible hand are really that smart?
We must not let the Russians get ahead of us in the chia-pet race.
Yeah, all these things meant life went much slower, simply because you couldn't do all those things you list right there in a single day. So you didn't expect to get all of them done in a single day. Trains took 3 or 4 days as you say. Great! That means there's less squished in those 3-4 days than there would be when you can take a plane and get there in a few hours. Stock quotes, etc. information traveled slow!! That means that it was easier to be a stock trader. Now, goodluck being stuck to your computer day-in day-out, streaming news at 2x speed, and watching your holdings. There's A TON of more information you have to know today. That's exactly my point, so I have no clue why you're calling bullshit Cranky :P
I know that, but I'm saying Clinton's was decided before the first primary.
Right. Jamal is more skilled than me with words, good for him ;)
It's sad that the FBI has become a cuck to the president, as is becoming so obvious now. And, as always deep government has all the impunity in the world since the President will take the downfall in the end if things turn ugly.
I think I was responding to the idea that "the good old days" of the late 19th century were somehow easier. They weren't. People had just as many aggravations to put up with (like crossing a street without getting horse shit all over one's shoes).
The history of the FBI is extremely mixed. At various times the FBI has been in a position to blackmail the presidency (they observed and recorded). The FBI has engaged in highly undemocratic activity--the Cointelpro program, for instance, which worked toward destroying the radical left). J. Edgar Hoover loathed Martin Luther King, for example.
I have a lot of respect for the FBI, much much more than the current deep state organizations like the CIA and NSA. It's my opinion that what power the FBI once had has been transferred to the CIA and NSA; but, the FBI has always been guided by the pursuit of truth and transparency, something lacking in abundance in our modern day government.
Everything seems to be going nowadays, in regards to policymaking and politics, behind closed doors and in closed sessions. When the FBI was around, politicians were scared to make policies in closed sessions due to the FBI exposing whatever BS was going on behind closed doors.
I'd rather have a fearful and subverted politician by the FBI than a secretive and sneaky politician.
>:O >:O >:O
Still, an Accord in Paris is better than no accord. isn't this like democracy? It's a terrible idea except for all the others, which are worse? Trump says he's going to renegotiate, only so far there's noone to renegotiate with.
I said before that the fear that the prey feels and the adrenaline that the predator does are qualitatively identical. Someone like me, needs to interpret it as fear.
Though, everyone does indeed let me get away with everything, and are almost always way way too afraid to confront me about anything.
I've never seen Code Geass before, but it looks entertaining. The question is, is it as entertaining as deleting your posts? Actually, do you know what's actually more entertaining than deleting your posts? The actual paranoia it actually invokes in you.
Have you actually watched any anime before?
But they'll only do so if you give them reason to.
Yes, I've actually watched quite a few. Some of my favourites so far have been Naruto, Steins;Gate, Elven Lied, and Neon Genesis Evangelion.
Samurai Champloo rings a bell. Yep, after googling, I definitely recall that I got several episodes in a long time ago. Good anime.
The former. Otherwise it would have had a weaker impact.
Quoting Question
I think it's more a matter of ethics than intelligence. It's about how that intelligence is put to use - whether altruistically or out of self-interest. Also relevant are short-term vs. long-term priorities.
It's a strongly held belief or even 'doctrine' in economics (Western economics) that the market is the most efficient agent at allocating resources, with green energy and the like being the focus of the discussion. This is a mantra I'm trying to figure if it is indeed an "absolute truth". It's been the mantra of neo-liberalism for the past 40 years, too, and that isn't really a compliment.
While, a free market might be the most efficient agent in allocating and managing resources (God, there is that mantra again), it might not have the foresight humans have, in regards to climate change for example.
Just wondering what other members think about the all great and amazing invisible hand?
China has done what no other nation has achieved in history in terms of speed of growth and the reduction of poverty. While, yes, there are horrific examples of exploitation occurring and citizens considering taking their lives when signing some binding contract with some company to be paid a certain amount every month for the time and work they provide; however, the number of people lifted from poverty and utter destitute has been in the least, incredible.
The answer will undoubtedly be the latter.
Yes, I agree. But, then why is neo/liberalism still in its heyday? What's keeping the bloody thing alive and well?
Is that like a sequel? I think I may have watched a movie of it or something if that exists, but didn't know there was a sequel.
Kind of, but it's too complicated to call it a sequel. It's on a different timeline, and is situated some time before the end of the first anime, if I recall correctly, it's not yet anything other than a videogame, as far as I'm aware, although from what I gather it's more like an interactive virtual manga than a typical videogame.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/karl_marx_was_right_20150531
I read through the article, but here's the thing. Yes Marx was right in diagnosing capitalism, but the faults don't lie with capitalism ultimately, but with human nature. Human nature is so constituted to generate a natural tendency towards sin, weakness and death. If wealth were suddenly divided equally between every human being on Earth, it would soon end up in the hands of the few once again. It's just natural. Most people would not have the discipline, concentration and effort required to maintain and grow their wealth, and they would squander it.
Just look at it! Most people get mortgages for bigger and bigger houses, they want to buy fancy cars, etc. That's the truth - they're doing it with their own hands. Like - there are some people in my village who bought new cars, and they don't even have a driving license! Isn't that stupidity now?
Weakness - and this means moral weakness - destroys most people. They want to show off - ahh I have a nice, fast, powerful car - the neighbour respects me, etc. etc. - but the dough flows out of your wallet! GREED - the average man is very greedy. LUST - inability to restrain aggressive desires. Lack of self-mastery - causing one to go like a horse after the carrot that they'll never catch. Really it's all about peer pressure - all about seeking to do things to fit in and make others like you. That's the cause of weakness. If one renounced everything - suddenly one would regain absolute control.
So nothing can be done! Nothing can change human nature at a large scale. We're talking now, but in 200 years people will be talking just as emptily as we're now talking, cause nothing will change. Sure - we'll have a different economic system, so what? Wealth (and power) will once again become concentrated in the hands of the few. There's absolutely nothing that can be done. This is the state of nature.
Quoting Question
Wrong. Very wrong. Most will answer that communism was better, unfortunately. It's the young that hate communism (generally), and the old that love it. Having a secure job and being equally poor was enough to buy their love. Equally poor - again, for most, the state of others matters more than their own state. It's the envy, the greed, the jealousy that destroys them.
Yeah yeah, in your dreams maybe. Even in 1000 years the poor African will get no pay from the state. The Western world seems more and more incapable of understanding how the rest of the world lives.
Let's see - you're paying the state taxes, and the state pays you what you paid them - niiiiice!
From what Comey released last night about how President Trump kept trying to get him 'alone', I wonder if our Chief wasn't looking for a bit of a bromance. :-}
For me it comes a long way down the list below today's general election.
This is a very interesting thing playing out. President vs Secret Service director. Let's see if Comey was sufficiently smart to outmanoeuvre Trump. Any bets?
Although the fact that he says that he had 6 phone conversations with Trump but only describes 2 of them leaves the window open for something new. But it could just be that these 4 conversations weren't worth reporting on.
It could be, but then if you were FBI director, would you reveal all your cards at once?
Clearly Comey seems to have taken those notes on purpose - he could have foreseen Trump's actions, in fact, he should have.
Yes, while at my brief stint at college for a degree in economics I encountered a rather high amount of engagement and enthusiasm in the political economics class when Marx got brought up. He seems to have this very personal and empathic ability on people. It's hard NOT to like what he says, regardless whether it is viable or not in society.
Here's my little quip towards a Marxist-led economy...
Who's going to archive and save all the years and years of hard work that culminates into communism according to Marx? Surely human capital can be lost as well as knowledge and expertise. With everything so well off, who's going to keep the cogs moving and the grass trimmed and the libraries clean? After a while, the whole thing might turn into a decadent and anarchic state if you reject the authoritarianism seen in many proto-communist states.
I like Lomborg although I'm part of the Green movement. Provocateurs like him force Greens to sharpen up their act. The phrases you quote are by Sharon Begley, a science writer who isn't part of the green movement at all, she's just a respected science journalist who, in the piece you quoted, receommended readers to read both Lomborg's views, Friel's rebuttal and Lomborg's rebuttal of the rebuttal. But Lomborg's case is basically that anthropogenic global warming is (a) not as serious as the consensus thinks; (b) too expensive to counter. I think this is a misjudgement on both counts. We should on a precautionary basis err on the side of caution about what we are bequeathing to the future, and we should spend a good deal to help those who might be seriously affected and lack the resources to take precautionary preventative action.
There's a general election today?
No bets but I do hope that someone will ask Comey for his "memos" he kept under the last administration's possible nefarious acts that happened between Clinton and Loretta Lyn at Sky Harbor Airport. Surely he kept just as complete memos.
As a private citizen, which James Comey is now? I sure as hell would. What have you got to lose? Your job?
Yep.
I doubt they'll veer away from the main topic.
There'll still be classified stuff that he legally can't say. And I believe he's spoken to Mueller who likely has advised him against saying other stuff that might otherwise be legal to say.
Well to begin with, you might lose the opportunity of becoming a big boy in the future in politics. What if Comey wants to become President in the future? He needs to leverage this occasion in his favour, which means he has to play his cards right.
I can't fathom why people think that slowing down carbon emissions is supposed to have some significant effect. The petroleum and natural gas will be gone in the next century (per David Archer), and then the question will be: will the North American coal reserves be burned?
David Archer, who taught global warming science at the University of Chicago, explains a little philosophical problem regarding doing something about global warming: humans have no experience making plans that extend out beyond one century. We would have to figure out how to do that to be confident that anything we're doing today will have any impact at all.
Archer's book The Deep Thaw is an easy read. I found it to be a great way to get the bigger picture.
Yes but a girl can hope!
As a private citizen? I sure as hell would. What have you got to lose? Your job?
[quote="Michael]There'll still be classified stuff that he legally can't say. And I believe he's spoken to Mueller who likely has advised him against saying other stuff that might otherwise be legal to say[/quote]
I know there is stuff he will not be able to say in the public hearing but there is a closed door hearing after the public hearing today, so maybe it will be fleshed out there. If it is, we can count on the leaks in this administration to fill in the gaps.
True but do you honestly think that Comey is going to want to have anything to do with the Executive branch again?
What else would you expect him to do? I mean once you've been FBI director, there's not much higher that you can go. So either he'll want to shoot for the very top in the future, or he'll want to become like George W. Bush and live a peaceful life on a ranch.
Either way, the fact he has prepared detailed notes on Trump before, suggests that he knew about the possibility of this happening, and has prepared the groundwork. Why would he have done that if he doesn't have larger ambitions? Otherwise he could just have resigned by himself.
Totally agree. In the sense that politics and institutions are manifestations of the human mind.
Quoting Agustino
But not this. We are greedy, but we don't have to be. But a greedy person will never convince another to stop being greedy, they must change themselves first. To say that nothing can be done is a good excuse for not changing.
To be fair, he does see the need to solve the problem of global warming and believes we can do it. From a few days ago:
[quote=Bjorn Lomborg]To solve global warming, we need to invest far more into making green energy competitive. If solar and wind generation and storage were cheaper than fossil fuels, it wouldn’t be necessary to force or subsidize anyone to stop burning coal and oil.
Research for Copenhagen Consensus shows a green energy R&D fund worth just 0.2 per cent of global GDP would dramatically increase the chance of a technological revolution. This would be significantly cheaper and much more effective than the Kyoto-Paris approach. Economists calculate returns to society of around $11 for every dollar invested.
A technology-led effort could advance not just solar and wind but all alternative-energy technologies. Encouraging world leaders would be far easier than strong-arming and bribing them into cutting growth – but it is also something that a smaller group of countries could pursue alone, and reap benefits. A carbon price might support such a policy, but climate-change policy must logically be technology-led.[/quote]
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/a-path-forward-after-the-paris-climate-agreement/article35180420/
Because one habit that is ingrained in people that work for any of the alphabet arms of the government is that documentation is key, full stop. They log the air they breathe as does that ID card that allows them movement in the inners of our secret intelligence agencies.
On Comeys' future? I think he will take a break from the public life, while creating a private company that does investigations of the same nature but where he will be the ultimate boss.
Like Mike Baker did in creating Diligence LLC. He is on the Imus radio show and network news shows as an authority. (said in her best Eric Cartman voice) 8-)
Okay, but I'm a practical guy, so speak to me in practical terms. How will you communicate all this to your average man? Us who are having this conversation aren't average - at least not in terms of intelligence, knowledge and education - you may be able to communicate these things to us, and we may even be able to understand them and seek to implement them in our own lives. But that is millions of miles away from changing the average man (and woman) out there.
Like literarily - many people don't even care about what you've just said up there. They don't even care if they're greedy, etc. You think I could go to one of my neighbours in the village where I'm from and convince them to - for example - stop beating their sons when they don't listen to them? And imagine if I can't even convince one of them, how can I convince thousands - millions of such people - around the world? It's all so unrealistic.
That's why changing the world - the average man - is impossible. We may be able to change ONE average person - maybe a few - but the whole effort required to do that, even for a single person, is immense.
Sure, but be realistic now. The notes he took seem to be extremely detailed. Why did he take such detailed notes? Comey isn't dumb. Do you think it was impossible for Comey to foresee that Trump would fire him? And if he did foresee it, would he take no measures to prepare in case it happened?
It's standard practice.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/17/us/politics/james-comey-memos-fbi-culture.html?_r=0
Again, I suggest that it is in their training. In the second year of college, for a B.S. in Global Security and Intelligence, the course: Intelligence Writing is required and the description is:
COM 223 Intelligence Writing 3 Credits (3,0)
The purpose of this course is to teach the basic skills of intelligence writing. The most essential principle of intelligence writing is to communicate to the reader exactly the message the analyst wants to communicate. Clarity, precision, accuracy, and brevity are key elements of intelligence writing, but also crucial is the overall structure of the intelligence brief. Two further elements are part of the intelligence writing process: a capacity to accurately evaluate information and an ability to make analytical judgments about the significance of a development. All these elements will be covered intensively as part of the intelligence writing process.
Followed by PSY 313 Personality and Profiling :-}
Not a mind-reader. All I know is that he was surprised when it happened, and first thought it was a prank.
I think James Comey was doing his job with the same due diligence that I am asking to see about the Loretta Lynch meeting that got James in the seat that he is in today. That would prove both sides we are debating here. Was his detailed memo writing consistent across both administrations?
Well of course, no one is going to be transformed just by reading my posts. But if your neighbour sees that you don't beat your sons, and that they listen a lot better as a result, then you might well convince them to change with a few kind words.
That's true. I normally sleep 3-6 hours a night. Got 4 last night. It's a vegan super power, as herbivores require the least amount of sleep. Though, I do plan to pretty much sleep all day. Prolly have a hot bath first.
I sleep the same amount as you and I'm not a vegan. I quit with the baths after my mom got rid of all my little boats.
I have a big Jacuzzi tub, that I can submerge myself up to my head in, with jets. Showers don't compete.
I only brought up the vegan thing, because it's on my mind. See, my mom a little brother were sick last week, but a couple days ago I got "lactose free" chocolate milk, right beside the silk stuff, but it was real, skim milk. I got home and took like two gulps from it before I noticed, and then was sick when I got up, days after they were. So, I figure that I was carrying it, and that horrible shit lowered my immune system, or moved me closer to an acidic rather than alkaline base, which made the symptoms manifest. Could also just be a coinkidink.
Right. And the possibility of scaling this operation is almost 0 - hence the average man will never, realistically, hope to become better. Implementing your suggestion takes a very long time, and will only help teach a very tiny number of people (if successful - cause it might not be and my sons could be the rebellious kind who just wouldn't obey me either way). Society at large will remain unaffected, which is precisely what I've been saying.
Intellectuals like us have a tendency of thinking the average man is equally capable of understanding and thinking things through as we are. But this is totally not true, as sad as this is. I'm actively trying to make my close friends better people. For example there's this guy I've known since I was a child for a very long time. Slowly through many many conversations I've been making him better educated, more intelligent and more moral. And I'm actively working on shaping him, because the stronger one's friends, the stronger one becomes - and even like this, it's hard.
For example, if I made him read this post, he couldn't get past the first sentence. Not because his brain doesn't work, but he gets immediately bored - can't focus. Not like you and me. We can read 50,000 words a day and not have an issue. Not this guy. So the occasions when I can teach him something are rare, and most often it has to be by example. I can't talk philosophy with him like I do with you, cause he won't listen. And I have many such friends/acquaintances. So if I'm having a hard time even building an army of such people around me, how much harder would it be to make a society of such people?
People really lack the virtues, big time. Like very big time. Impatient, lazy, can't focus, etc. Even at this small level I'm failing - sure you can say it's because I suck and I can't educate people - but the truth is that nobody can educate people in a reasonable amount of time once they are already adults. That's why dictatorships put a lot of emphasis on schooling for everyone - schools are a way to indoctrinate all children from the very beginning, when they can actually be educated and shaped. Once one reaches past a certain age, if they haven't already accumulated a minimum of knowledge, then there's very little hope for them.
You and I can hope to educate people who are already intelligent - but we have no chance with the average man (and woman). We're fucked.
I can see how that might give the twig and berries a good pressure wash.
There's another theory I arrived at after reading your day-in-the-life post. Maybe you caught the shit your mom and little bro had. They proved in the 18th century that there were germs that caused illness and they made people contagious. That's another possibility as opposed to your whole body out of line with nature, god, and the universe theory.
>:O He lied through his teeth, and he's got all of you fooled. Not that Trump is much better.
Please enlighten me. Now, is it Comey *working* for the Ruskies?
Don't be senselessly averse. Because something is "dirty" or "improper" rather than actually harmful. I've had people tell me that hot yoga is gross because of all of the other people's sweat in the air... yet, but when your body is warm, it's more malleable, and reduces risks of harming yourself...
What I said included that,
Maybe I need a reality check or am hallucinating... Did Comey not just tell the whole American public in broad daylight that without the help of the Russians, Trump would never have gotten elected. Not that there necessary was collusion between the Russians and Trump; but, that there was blatant interference in the democratic process of electing a president.
Maybe I'm high; but, in one hour Comey showed more grit and resolve than Trump has, since being elected.
Are you two Trump fans or something?
Actually I am reminded of this.
If Jesus came back, men would throw him back on the Cross immediately. The average man will refuse salvation. Pff. Man is too dumb, too weak, too servile - generally speaking. Man doesn't want morality - man doesn't want good. He wants bread, power, irresponsibility. The animalistic desires that are found in man's soul are too strong for most.
We "judge men too highly". We judge them in our own image - but they'll never be there. Try as we may - we'll go from the cradle to the grave, and nothing will change. Of course that doesn't stop us trying - just like a bird doesn't stop singing its song - but that won't do anything in the end.
Men have a common tendency to divide a conflict in the good side, and the bad side. The truth is no side is good.
I better take my drugs, since everyone else seems high.
They're fans of prestige.
I think you are right, but it is not the ignorant men that would put Him there, though they would be induced to cheer, it is the intelligent men - the Grand Inquisitors.
Great movie, should watch it again.
Someone pass me whatever they're smoking.
Remember how many times he died for it? How much he made himself suffer?
See, the GI can induce the ignorant to cheer. Without their cheers, the whole procession would be impossible. Why can the GI induce the ignorant to cheer? Because the GI is selling what the ignorant actually want - bread, irresponsibility, power, authority - Jesus doesn't. Jesus has no chance - because he doesn't sell what people already want. The GI markets to the natural desires of men - that's why the devil always rules this world.
You want to save me? >:O
I don't know about save, but the misery is rather unsightly, and the tension and unconscious volatility is uncomfortable.
So what do you propose?
That's why he may be your next leader
A vow of total silence for two months, and some fasting from all habitual activities for at least a couple of weeks. Not necessarily right now, but you should try that sometime.
Even if there was irrefutable evidence of obstruction or perjury or the like I'd put the odds at 0% so long as the Republicans have the majority.
What are you smoking?
I've practiced that for 3 months with regards to this forum as a protest once :D
Quoting Wosret
That's a bit harder.
About what? And why do you think that?
About his emotional state.
You want to smoke from the pipe of truth?
Dangerous people you are much very.
You scary.
You still haven't even answered that question. Why do you think Comey would lie about his emotional state? Do you really think that he has some ulterior motive in doing so? Wait, don't tell me... he's just butthurt over getting fired by Trump?
Why ask when you have the pipe of truth to answer it for you?
That said, Comey, despite being fired by the man for no good reason, repeatedly asserted that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to tamper with votes. Absent that evidence, that the media and the Democrats cannot let this story go is becoming nothing more than a witch-hunt and an attempt at obstruction. I want to see Congress finally move forward on health care, tax, and immigration reform, as it promised to and as Trump promised to.
Exactly. That's what he wants you to believe.
So it's different when introverts do it eh? This new elaboration of Super is pretty sweet.
Let's see what Mueller has to say about 'for no good reason'.
The party is only getting started folks. BYOB!
Comey said that Trump was not the target of a counterintelligence investigation and that no votes were changed. He didn't say that the Trump campaign didn't collude with Russia to influence the election, which is what is being investigated.
This is nutty. Did you watch the testimony? Do you not see that his actions have been the definition of non-partisan?
Yes.
Quoting Thorongil
Obviously, if he wants you to believe something, then he needs to structure it the right way, no?
Lawyers often defend vile people and they should. Everybody deserves a defense. Kasowitz wasn't performing that function. He was just trying to produce spin. It's nauseating.
Right, he didn't say that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia because, at present, there is no evidence to that effect. :-}
That's not what I heard. Comey repeatedly asserted that the DNC, and DCCC were targets of Russian intervention along with... at least a hundred upwards to a thousand D-NGO's.
Like I said, time will tell. Comey seems supremely confident that Mueller will finish what he began but wasn't allowed to finish.
Quoting Michael
Is not the same as this:
Quoting Question
That's not the same as changing the votes. From the transcript:
You changed the wording here. First you said "Comey ... asserted that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to tamper with votes" and now you're saying
"he didn't say that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia because, at present, there is no evidence to that effect". Which is it? There's a difference between asserting that something isn't the case and not asserting that something is the case.
Also, you accused the Democrats of pushing the story that the campaign colluded to tamper with the votes, but they're not. They're accusing the campaign of colluding to influence the election (e.g. via hacking the DNC and leaking info, or promoting fake news), which isn't the same thing.
While, this is true on face value of Comey at the time not being aware of altered votes, as of recent there is evidence emerging that votes were altered through the various of software used to cast electronic votes. I'll have to scour the internet for that piece of information if anyone is interested.
Ergo, people need to shut up about this and move on to more important things.
Which is what I said.
Quoting Thorongil
Right, so this isn't something that Comey said. It's just something that you're saying.
Yeah, that's definitely a good attitude.
Report: Russia Launched Cyberattack On Voting Vendor Ahead Of Election
The above details are from the NSA. So, I'm glad it's not all down to the FBI to figure out what happened. But, then again do we know that any other director will get kicked for 'no good reason'?
Quoting Question
The investigations against Russia are ongoing and will continue, as they should. But Congress needs to stop focusing on this issue, let the people in charge do their jobs, and actually get on to arguably more important things. The same goes for the media. If evidence is brought to light, great, focus your efforts on it then, but there's no reason to now.
The thing is that the investigation is only picking up speed. If I'm not mistaken there are currently 4 or 5 ongoing investigation of Russian interference. So, lets just focus on this issue and not beat around the bush with it.
I do dispute what you said. You said that "the media and the Democrats cannot let [the story that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to tamper with the votes] go". But that's not the story. The story is that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to influence the election.
And as for there being no evidence of this, Adam Schiff would disagree.
It is Congress' job to focus on the issue. That's exactly what the House and Senate Intelligence Committees are for.
No way, Goku is on his way to being tops of the multiverse.
Lol. So? Nothing has been made public, and until then, I will withhold judgment. I suspect you and Schiff may want there to be such evidence, but that doesn't mean there is or that what the latter deems as legitimate evidence really is.
Quoting Michael
Oh please. The whole body has been paralyzed by this issue, such that nothing is getting done on health care, taxes, and immigration.
Anyone else catch that meaty allusion?
DBZ is a great example of absurdism!
Starts out with an alien child who is unnaturally robust in a world filled with monsters. He learns martial arts and becomes an underdog hero!
Then he learns how to shoot concentrated beams of energy out of his hands, is able to move short distances at near light speed, could destroy an entire planet with ease, and is generally invulnerable to all known forces. That's not enough though...
Then he gets the power to essentially gather all the "chi" energy in the known universe and form it into a concentrated attack in order to defeat his most powerful enemy yet...
AND THEY'RE STILL NOT DONE?
They made Goku into a kid again and threw in a multi verse, but at this point we all already now that he is an unstoppable god.
That's how DBZ will end. Goku will become or defeat god...
Don't watch it much, eh?
You didn't withhold judgement. You claimed that there was no evidence, that the entire thing is a witch hunt and an attempt at obstruction, and that "people need to shut up about this and move on to more important things".
And I suspect that you and Trump may want there to not be such evidence, but that doesn't mean there isn't.
That doesn't refute my point that (certain members of) Congress are the "people in charge do[ing] their jobs", and so should be focusing on the issue.
And while we're on the topic, I'm glad (on behalf of Americans), that the Republican-controlled Congress isn't getting anything done on health care, taxes, and immigration. Their plans seem pretty terrible.
I watched the first episode of dragonball universe but the production quality was so shit I was convinced it was fan-made...
I'll take Roshi-Bulma shenanigans or even endless battles with Cell-Freeza-Dr-Gero et al over a forced quasi redo of the original any day ("the tournament").
Don't you see how this will never end?
I have always stated that there is no evidence at present. And yes, this issue is currently being used as a witch hunt against Trump and an attempt to obstruct the passage of other legislation. Third, yes, I think people need to stop talking about this unless, of course, they have something worthwhile to say, such as, "here's evidence that the Trump campaign unequivocally colluded with Russia."
Quoting Michael
Nope, I've made it quite clear that I'm not a fan of Trump.
Quoting Michael
I would never wish to deny so trivial a point, though.
His was an allusion to The Brothers Karamazov.
I asked because you were off on many of those details.
State your malformed grievances >:)
He's faster than light by the end of DB, and many many many many times that by the end of DBZ. He's never made a spirit bomb of anywhere near the proportions of the entire universe.
Made goku a kid again is not toriyama. It's "super" and not "universe".
The only thing less fair than him being tried before a Republican Senate would be to be tried before a Democrat one. At least before Republicans, there is no way an innocent man would be convicted, which is a lesser evil than a guilty man being acquitted.
Maybe if it led to imprisonment. Less so if it's just a removal from office. Surely having a criminal as President is worse than having an innocent man replaced with someone else?
Besides, I did preface my reply with "Even if there was irrefutable evidence of obstruction or perjury or the like..."
Issue #1: "Faster than light": It's only in his first encounters with Nappa and Vegeta that the "blink" movement is depicted in the shows (IIRC), which is described as merely "faster than the eye can see". Given that we can see energy blasts traveling and the dodges which follow, we know that they're at least not traveling at light speed. I'm not sure why you think hat OG kid Goku could move faster than light but up until the Vegeta encounters everything was entirely visible.
Issue #2 "The spirit bomb": In order to defeat Bu Goku made the largest spirit bomb to have ever existed. Arguably he did not gather all the chi energy in the universe, but the implication was that he gathered a portion of the chi from everything in the universe (IIRC). I will cede the technicality that it wasn't all the chi energy, but it may have been a sizable chunk of it, and his ability to do should he choose remains.
Issue #3 "Made goku and kid again is not toriyama". Dragon Ball GT (where Goku becomes a kid) is not considered canon?
Issue #4 "The correct name of the show is Dragon Ball Super": You're definitely right about this one...
The ultimate question of this inquiry is not whether the Russians affected the US election, but it's of whether Trump's administration colluded with the Russians to make that happen. If Comey is saying there is no evidence of Trump's involvement, the issue is closed. Even had Trump attempted to block Comey's investigation into Trump's involvement with Russia, if the truth is that Trump wasn't involved with Russia, then his obstruction charge would become moot. He obstructed an investigation into his innocence, which is a pretty crazy place for this to land. It seems maybe it's as Trump had suggested: He was being investigated on bogus charges and it was sidetracking his presidency, so he wanted it halted. He wasn't hiding anything. He was just trying to hasten the end to a Democrat effort to delegitimize him.
As far as I'm aware, it would still be a crime. Just as escaping from prison after a wrongful conviction is a crime.
But then you're the lawyer, not me.
Nope, Goku outruns the solar flare to get Roshi's glasses in the tournament. Even if the solar flare (something that amplifies the light of the sun at your back) isn't the speed of light, it would have to be close, and he'd had to be multiple times faster to pull that off. People often dispute this for ridiculous reasons, yet Whis in super can fly across the universe in like 45 min. They usually dispute this because when goku asks how long snake way is, buddy says that it's "rumored to be" 1 million kilometers, but toriyama actually drew a picture, and snake way runs the entire length of the galaxy. Look it up. Makes sense, since it's the afterlife for the entire galaxy.
They made the spirit bomb from the people of earth after wishing them back. There was a big thing about it, where Vegeta and Hercule has to telepathically persuade them too. Remember?
I don't care who considers it what, it's a turd in actuality.
And all the others.
You're a lawyer. Isn't that exactly how you work?
Quoting Hanover
Nobody's above the law, right? If a shopkeeper would be punished for obstructing justice then so should a President. America ain't Russia (yet).
We're talking of the head of a secret service, who is absolutely capable at reading people, predicting their reactions, knowing their motivations, and handling them. This is not some sorry ass coward who gets intimidated by a few words. If anything, he should be FAR BETTER than Trump at manipulating the public - and it shows, he's got all of your fooled.
Yeah, that's why he was intimidated by Trump. He was worried that he'd be fired.
Right, so his real motivation was to keep his job. Simple.
Yes? I don't understand your point.
My point is that he wasn't trying to "serve the nation" or whatever other bullshit, he was just trying to stay in power. He spent his time writing Trump memos, and arranging his back in case he gets fired. He chose his words carefully to try to prevent himself from getting fired, while also leaving open an exit in case he did get fired to be able to turn it against Trump.
He didn't tell Trump that Flynn is a good guy by accident or because he was intimidated. He told him by design. The mirroring in the language was supposed to communicate trust and agreement in a subtle way.
I didn't realise these were mutually exclusive. Surely every politician, government official, and so on seeks to keep their job and to serve the country (which is their job)?
Arguably Goku went for the glasses before Tien actually released "solar flare". I would like to see a breakdown of the event before I take this as evidence. Regarding the length of snake way, are you suggesting that since Goku has completed this journey of 100k light years (numerous times) in under 100k years that he must have been traveling FTL? Is Toriyama's galaxy actually 100k light years across? It's also entirely possible that the space around snake way is bent and stretched such that it spans the galaxy without actually being to scale in length.
I'll cede that the spirit bomb Goku made was using the chi energy of the inhabitants of earth (it has been awhile indeed)...
I would argue that Tiens solar flare move is not analogous to a light-speed projectile move but rather a move which causes the light to slowly grow in intensity and that the length of snake-way would create too many issues were we to accept it as over 100k light years long.
P.S: If indeed FTL travel is the best interpretation for DB mechanics, it wouldn't surprise me given how absurd their power scaling has become, but perhaps this only makes my original point even stronger...
I didn't say they were. Only that his real motivations weren't what he claims them to be.
I thought he was very clear about his motivations:
Mongolia is known for its rampant corruption. You don't know what to do with an honest man.
FEINSTEIN: Let's go to the Flynn issue. The senator outlined, “I hope you could see your way to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.” But you also said in your written remarks, and I quote, that you “had understood the president to be requesting that we drop any investigation of Flynn in connection with false statements about his conversations with the Russian ambassador in December,”. Please go into that with more detail.
COMEY: Well, the context and the president's word are what led me to that conclusion. As I said in my statement, I could be wrong, but Flynn had been forced to resign the day before. And the controversy around general Flynn at that point in time was centered on whether he lied to the vice president about his nature of conversations with the Russians, whether he had been candid with others in the course of that. So that happens on the day before. On the 1, the president makes reference to that. I understood what he wanted me to do was drop any investigation connected to Flynn's account of his conversations with the Russians.
FEINSTEIN: Now, here's the question, you're big. You're strong. I know the oval office, and I know what happens to people when they walk in. There is a certain amount of intimidation. But why didn't you stop and say, Mr. President, this is wrong. I cannot discuss this with you.
COMEY: It's a great question. Maybe if I were stronger, I would have. I was so stunned by the conversation that I just took in. The only thing I could think to say, because I was playing in my mind -- because I could remember every word he said -- I was playing in my mind, what should my response be? That's why I carefully chose the words. Look, I've seen the tweet about tapes. Lordy, I hope there are tapes. I remember saying, “I agree he is a good guy,” as a way of saying, I'm not agreeing with what you asked me to do. Again, maybe other people would be stronger in that circumstance. That's how Ed myself. I hope I'll never have another opportunity. Maybe if I did it again, I'd do it better
__________________
Right here. Comey isn't a weakling okay? He's not a wuss. You really think he was "stunned"? He said what he did to Trump in order to try to fool him and keep his job. They were words designed both to subtly agree to Trump, and give him an exit in case he ever had to reveal them to the public.
Wonder what story that would be?
Is it you at 0:38? :-O :P
Dude, stop touting nonsense. It gets quite tiring. What makes you think I need to feel good about myself in the first place?
How does it work in UK? What happens if there's a coalition between Labor, SNP and Lib Dems? Seems like they'd be absolutely tied in that case.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/08/general-election-2017-exit-polls-results-live/
But the Lib Dems have said that they won't join a coalition, so that one's unlikely.
Edit: Forgot the DUP who would likely join the Conservatives.
Honestly, I have no clue.
To this day that phrase pops into my mind when things are getting frayed around the edges. "Push buttons!"
Jesus, I have someone close to me who fits that description exactly. I've witnessed the pointless clinging and suffering that they dare not admit even to themselves.
Hopefully, you were just speaking nonsense for your own amusement as Agustino suggested. If you were serious, then trust me, and avoid that path at all costs.
Interesting predictions and results in Scotland with SNP losses, and some Labour gains. Labour's doing well in Wales and the South, so far. And entirely predictable that UKIP are doing absolutely terribly, but very interesting that less of the UKIP vote than expected is going to the Tories, and is instead being split more evenly between the two main parties.
This just in from Laura Kuenssberg: senior Tories are now accepting that they're not going go do better than the exit poll! Ooh, and Angus Robertson, Leader of the SNP in Westminster, has lost his seat to a Tory!
So is heart disease. It doesn't come up in political debates much.
Possible. Although think about sugar. At least it kills sweetly.
Yes, "hateful heartless disease"
We all know Allah snackbads are just called freedom bars in the west. Same ingredients different brand name.
alla-hooy snack tart.
The difference is that terrorists intend to kill you. A soggy roof or a too-sweet glass of tea does not.
Several months ago my university had a student run people over with his car while they were walking to class on the sidewalk. Now, was he a terrorist in the non-academic use of the term? No, but he intended to run people over and did so. That's a whole lot more "problematic" than dying in an accident or as a result of your own actions.
Also, say there was a whole group of vindictive college students camping out in some abandoned, remote parking lot, plotting to run people over in the name of Allahu Snackbars. Wouldn't that worry you? And say this group running people over propagated other groups of nutters to go out and form little cliques with the intention of running people over, wouldn't this terrify you? Or would you still be like, "lul, im still more likely to die by lightning, lel"?
Another Labour gain from the Tories in Plymouth Sutton.
Why did your your university have this fellow run over people with his car?
Unauthorized camping out in parking lots, especially remote parking lots, is an outrage that insults the prophet. Firebomb the vindictive sons of bitches. Let every abandoned remote parking lot become a running river of harmless merriment (per the Mikado).
I preface all statements with "Herp derp..."
You're free to rank problems by how much the source of the problem hates your guts.
I think the same will happen to Republicans in 2018 unless they actually pass health, tax, and immigration reform.
Edit: Or I should say, the largest party.
I had a fly in the house last week. I'm fairly certain he was deliberately trying to piss me off by dive bombing my face.
Another big gain to Labour from the Tories in Brighton Kemptown.
Ahh, you've bought into the propaganda employed by politicians to keep you alarmed and feeling insecure, and employed by the media as sensationalism designed to sell their wares.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-terrorism-statistics-every-american-needs-to-hear/5382818
Cos e weren't eavy enuff by imself? :s
The perfect antidote for the sickly inability to use force!
I'm not sure what you mean? Like, how I said that stuff was about me? I just said that it was about me to soften the blow.
I am sensitive to the passive aggression, and plausible deniability that both attacks your senses and mind, but I've grown accustomed to it. This is why I confront people directly, they can hate me if they want.
This only began to gradually change, as I changed. I myself hold some deep resentment towards this, towards what cowards everyone turned out to be, when I was always the one afraid of them, but they only did that to me because of my complete lack of power.
It took me years to forgive the world.
A lack of fear, when everyone around you is afraid, is to empathize, but not sympathize, precisely like a psychopath. Everything we know about such severe anti-social personalities suggests this.
No, I'll chose life. I want to live a quite poor life, and make a family. I'm less confident in my ability to do this than to fool the world, but I only ever wanted revolution, to control, because of resentment, fear, ignorance, and hatred. No, I'm not the exception. No, it's not okay if it's me. I'm not the special, the only good one in a wicked world.
You're to old fashioned. The workforce is becoming increasingly automated, putting people out of jobs. Fast forward a bit and most jobs are being done by robots, or computers, where are all the people? The're unemployed. Call it unemployed benefit, or the state paying people an income, it amounts to the same thing. What the people are doing is the necessary consumerism, while the robots and computers do all the work. Just watch the film Wall-e.
No, unfortunately this crazy person was directing those comments at me. It's not the first time he makes stuff up about others - and it's just annoying because he's pulling stuff out of his arse as you Aussies would say >:O
But as his recent comments (or shall I say rants) make clear, he's a bit cuckoo, overly sensitive and even psychotic.
There's a limit to the state being able to do this. And some people need to run, program, etc. the computers - like me.
It's remarkable how often we hear that response. I might be more likely to die in the kitchen than from a terrorist's bullet, but it hardly follows that the dangers of kitchens should occupy my thoughts more than murderers who want to kill innocents and destroy the things I value. If the concern is to prevent fear and panic, then I can understand it, but I don't think this is how it's usually meant. It actually seems to be an attempt to minimize the problem.
And the implication is always that I should be most concerned about what is likely to kill me, as if my politics should primarily be about my personal comfort and safety. I mean, I'm very unlikely to be stoned to death, and yet it really bothers me that women are being stoned to death for adultery.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Quoting Heister Eggcart
>:O >:O >:O >:O
I'm glad to hear you're not "assured of your own superiority as you grow fat and alone and accumulate worthless garbage" then, and that you were not speaking about yourself and were just spouting nonsense after all. Unless you have reached the point of denial where there is the pointless clinging and suffering that you dare not admit even to yourself?
Yup, I was just speaking nonsense, and am in suffering denial. You can feel free to ignore me.
Both nonsense and denial?
I would feel free to ignore you if I wanted to ignore you. Since I don't do you think I should feel constrained to ignore you?
No man, since saying I'm "speaking nonsense", and "in suffering denial" lacks content, they're just things you're telling yourself in order to not listen.
The discussion was about what we should focus on during an election. Terrorism was elected because it's a serious problem. I don't say it's not a serious problem. I'm suspicious that it occupies your thoughts more than heart disease (wonder why it gets shifted to kitchen hazards?) because it's dramatic. There's a villain. There's a cultural conflict. There are dark-skinned towel-heads wielding swords.
Meanwhile poor little heart disease gets ignored while it's a much bigger monster and the government, as the brain of society, could actually do something about it. Or child abuse. Why isn't that flashy enough to get peoples' attention?
Does heart disease threaten the national security of a country? :s
I don't doubt that sentiments like these might be common among some Americans, but it's got nothing to do with my own preoccupations. "Dark-skinned towel-heads" are being killed and abused by Islamic radicals in the Middle East. It's remarkable that speaking out against terrorism, or emphasizing the struggle against Islamic fundamentalism, is taken to be aligned with racism or xenophobia. From my point of view, it's about showing solidarity with Muslims (along with others) who are being oppressed by conservatives and extremists.
By the way, I'm not interested in the original point about how terrorism factors into the election. I was responding to Heister's post only.
Yes! I see it! The greatest superhero is a pile of ashes on the floor that the greatest villian passes by as he comes to pillage. Amidst the devestation as the townspeople shake in fear, worried they'll be further slashed by the demonic fangs of the arch enemy, the ashes remain calm, assured, knowing that since they've got nothing, they've got nothing to lose and will so remain untouched. The profound power of powerlessness.
An empty vessel though in every sense of the word.
Nice chat.
Certainly hate weakness don't you? It blinds you.
Irony is a mastery of truth. We will simply be looking for all of the weaknesses in others as a deflection mechanism because we hate it so much, that we're unwilling to see it in ourselves.
You use comedy to mask vulnerability. At least it is a form of being in touch with it, but it still isn't entirely honest.
They're oblivious to their own, but hyper sensitive to yours.
I know, but you are in yours. I didn't address you.
Quoting Wosret
You should hate weakness (of character).
Quoting jamalrob
No doubt.
Quoting TimeLine
I don't know what Wosret is up to, but he seems to be delirious, in any case. His posts don't show much coherency.
I blame the drugs.
Wosret, put that weed down please.
I don't know about that. If you are not paying attention in the kitchen when you're cutting things up with those big knives, it could be bad. I think the dangers of your kitchen should occupy your mind much more than thoughts of murderers who want to kill you, unless you actually know some who are out to get you. I'm sure you're acquainted with "paranoia". What about those things you value? Do you value them more than your life, which could be lost in your kitchen?
What do you mean?
Franz Kafka' Metamorphosis. Now, run along.
That's the one where he turns into a bug, and his dick falls of, but he doesn't care, lol.
I've read that, and got terribly bored by the time I finished it.
I think you're talking to yourself there.
Yes my tiny brain couldn't handle it :’(
Let me guess. Was it about being an autonomous rational agent? >:O
Well, your implication was that I had gender issues because I was masochistic. This is often the case, but not always. You should reason from the particular to the general, and not the other way around.
No, as suggested by all of the musicians, my ideals, and most of the things I say, it was narcissism, and the desire to be beautiful, and not ugly.
Gender issues? Sorry buddy, but no, that was certainly not my implication. Perhaps a Freudian slip? I meant that some people thrive in misery, that they offer very little to the world, knowing that the world would respond negatively. They like it.
Liar.
Lol... keep hiding -- keep trying to be on top, see where it leads.
Wawawiwaaa (L) sexy time?
Quoting Wosret
Dayuuuuuuum man... no need for details dawg!
I disagree with the others. Yours is a sudden clarity.
An attempt at humor? It's not that I don't believe such issues might exist, but really, there was nothing in the subtext of what anyone had said that could lead to such an interpretation.
Quoting TimeLine
Quite, she says (responding to my allusion to the book), then says one can eventually come to enjoy being a bug rather than a man, and worthless and masochistic offerings that keep one reliant.
The subtext is so fucking subtle. Clearly I'm projecting.
As for sudden clarity, more like a week off of drugs. Won't be completely cleaned out for a month. I'm just sick at home wasting time. I gotta do run errands anyway for hours in like three hours today, and not super feeling like it... dang.
Oh. I butted into my own discussion. :)
Damn the drones (Y)
I bet he loses.
I thought it was $30,000,000 spent in total, not just by the Democrats.
Edit: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/09/us/politics/ossoff-handel-georgia-house-special-election.html?_r=0
$23m by Ossoff, $4.2m by Handel.
Edit 2: Ah, there's an extra $12m raised for Handel and $6.7m raised for Ossoff. So, yeah, you were right.
http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2017/06/09/ajc-poll-ossoff-opens-lead-over-handel-in-georgias-6th/
The whole things seems such a waste of money by a party desperate for any sort of win to celebrate.
Yeah. If the rich have this much money to waste then they can afford having their taxes raised. You make an excellent point. (Y)
I'm partly kidding btw. I work in a hospital. That's me covered head to toe in personal protective equipment to keep from being splattered with blood.
I'm just colder.
At the same time, the GOP has changed. The influence of Movement Conservatives within the party is at an all time low. Instead of following the recommendations of the 2012 autopsy, the GOP is now all in as the party of older, whiter, maler, less educated, rural America.
So if Republicans lose the 6th, it could be a bellwether of changing demographics and their party's swerve in the wrong direction.
Good word. I used it yesterday non-figuratively, to refer to a goat I saw in a field.
That's the spin, but it's generally BS. This is the sixth effort the Dems have made to reverse their alarming trend of losing seats, especially in state houses. Maybe they can win this one, but doubtful. What it will mostly show is that $30,000,000 can make a difference wherever you spend it.
In 2016, just last year, Tom Price won the district by over 20 points. He spent only $1.7 million. https://ballotpedia.org/Georgia%27s_6th_Congressional_District_election,_2016.
There's been no great demographic shift in the past year. I'm sure if Ossoff wins, the press will spin it as you say, as they've been telling us that Georgia is a purple state for a decade or so now. They even suggested it was in play in the last election. Meanwhile, the Democrats have been shedding seats at rates not seen in certainly my lifetime, and the election results in Georgia have been as they always have.
The Democrats are united under Trump's nonsense, but the truth is that Asians, African Americans, Hispanics, west coast environmental liberals, east coast socialist liberals, gays and lesbians, and the various other minorities under the Democrat umbrella have very little in common other than their fear of an uncaring establishment. If that can be dealt with by a moderate Republican, the Democrats are going to be in greater trouble.
We have a press the consistently gets their predictions wrong, they buy into the Democratic narrative, and then they wonder why nobody cares what they have to say.
This is a profound misunderstanding of conservatism. I would be extremely surprised if a Trump supporter objected to assisting Syrian refugees. In fact, I would expect most offering the aid would be Christian, flag waving, Trump supporting conservatives. The evangelicals offering this aid certainly are not Clinton supporters.
There is nothing inconsistent with being in favor of controlled immigration, especially as it relates to those who may harbor animosity towards the US, and offering aid to displaced or suffering individuals. If you think the people manning the food lines, offering aid in times of disaster, and offering up large amounts in charity are Clinton supporters because there's an inherent connection between giving and democratic ideology, you're just very wrong. It's exactly the opposite.
The old advice is that I just have to be able to outrun the slowest in my group. I can definitely do that.
Typical conservative. ;)
Baptists aren't evangelicals.
Fulton, Cobb, and Dekalb all went for Rubio in the primary. I couldn't easily find a vote breakdown by Congressional district, but I stand by my claim that the 6th is not Trump's base.
Of course taking in refugees is the Christian thing to do. Did you miss Trump suspending the refugee program. Have you seen the ad?
I know the stuff about charitable giving and it's not remotely relevant here.
Those who voted for Rubio in the primary most likely voted for Trump in the general election. The 6th needn't have favored Trump over Rubio for them to now favor Ossoff over Handel.
I really don't know what you mean when you say that Fulton or DeKalb went for Rubio. DeKalb is overwhelmingly Democrat and Fulton went for Clinton as well as I recall. It's a closer call in Fulton, but not DeKalb. Cobb went Republican. But, sure, none went for Trump, but I don't see how that translates into them now expected to be going for Ossoff.Quoting Srap TasmanerAgain, you don't understand the conservative position. They will both favor limiting refugees into the US and will then offer them aid once here. It eludes you how that can be. I understand that, but I'm just saying that the Republicans of the 6th who are now offering aid to the Syrians are not going to vote Ossoff because they're offended by Trump's immigration policies. (1) They aren't offended by Trump's immigration position, and (2) they feel a requirement to help the needy, regardless of where they are. That is to say, they'd help the poor in Mexico while in Mexico (and in fact they do), and they wouldn't stop helping them just because they're now on US soil. However, they would be opposed to allowing them to immigrate. It's two separate issues that you can't conflate.
Quoting Srap TasmanerYou think it's irrelevant because you can't grasp the conservative mindset and you keep spouting nonsense about how a conservative who helps refugees must also favor immigration policies that permit entry of refugees. Charity and government action are not intertwined in a conservative's mindset. You might think it's hypocritical and stupid, but it's leading to your misunderstanding of what's going on.
In case of a terrorist attack, take a pistol and shoot the fuck out of that motherfucker. Heh. Teach the bastard a lesson.
Which is why I said I never thought Ossoff had a chance. But he got nearly 50% the first time around. The suburbs and exurbs are changing. It's a fact.
The Republican party has also been changing, but not in a way that helps keep affluent suburbs in the fold.
I didn't say most of the things you think I said. If you can't be bothered to read what I actually wrote, and prefer assuming you know what I need to have explained to me, I'm just going to ignore you.
I stopped by to talk about what's interesting about the race in the Georgia 6th, not to promote my own politics. I am capable of distinguishing those, are you?
Rubio was so much more physically appealing than Trump. We could have had a hunk instead of a clunk.
On the contrary, all I see is Hanover laying down the hammer.
Quoting Hanover
Incidentally, there's a new game coming out called Far Cry 5 set in Montana, whose fictional bad guys are... wait for it... violent Christian, white right-wing cultists that players can gleefully mow down. The inspiration came from an apparently similar cult that existed in the state and the fact that people like Richard Spencer have spent time there.
So, basically, you'll be lucky if you make it out alive, but not because of the bears. We might as well rename it Helmand province.
Oh. So that's the explanation of why your face looks like the aftermath of Pearl Harbour, right? :-O O:)
Don't get all pissy. It's very unappealing.
What I said is true, which is (1) the polls can't be trusted, (2) if Ossoff wins it will not signify anything about the Democratic party other than money wins elections, (3) the Republican party and north Atlanta suburbs have not significantly changed since 2016 when Price won the district by 20 points, (4) the Georgia vote for Trump was due to the limited binary choice between him and Clinton and was never a strong voice for Trump, (5) the conservative outreach to Syrian refugees is not evidence that they will reject someone who is not supportive of Syrian immigration into the US, (6) the Republican dominance in recent elections is not due to fraud or manipulation, but due to fair elections, (7) the Democrats will have all sorts of problems keeping their hodge-podge of groups together once the unifying force of the Satanic Trump is eliminated, and (8) the press is constantly trying to create a narrative that the Democrats haven't taken a hard core thumping in the past few election cycles.
If you're so worried about abandoning them, maybe carry them out and use them as a shield.
Guess I should recant my earlier claim that a single vote doesn't make a difference.
I am not interested in your assertion that you have "explained elsewhere before". This is a present discussion; explain now.
Quoting Thorongil
They both may cause your death, but the former is far more likely than the latter, so what's the difference, according to you?
Note, I acknowledge that terrorism is one among many other threats we face, and like all threats it should be addressed to the very best of the our abilities, which means that terrorists should be treated with the absolute contempt and ruthlessness that they deserve. Terrorism should be accorded a unique status as a special case of criminality. But beating it up to make it appear as the greatest threat we face won't help, because it plays into the hands of the terrorists, gives them the very air they need, and also because saying it's the greatest threat is plainly not based on the facts.
Maybe I'm not interested in rehashing it, but whatever....
Quoting John
What you quoted of me answers this very question....
Quoting John
I don't recall saying it was the greatest threat we face. The rest of your comment is in agreement with me.
2) Money can't change Republicans into Democrats.
3) It's just a trend, and a lot of people are curious about this election as a data-point, that's all.
4) Agree.
5) Agree, but I never said otherwise. There was one ad that does reflect the views of Trump and his base, but struck a somewhat dissonant note here.
6) Gerrymandering has been extremely important since 2010 in particular. Voter suppression has been on the rise since 2013. Do those dates mean anything to you?
7) Democrats don't know what being unified is.
8) Complicated, both the purported fact and the press's treatment of politics.
OK, but my point was just that as a threat it is neither the greatest threat (it is actually way down on the scale), nor is it a special class of threat; it is just another threat. I do think it is, though, as I already said, a special class of criminality and should be treated as such, simply because it is so radically unacceptable.
I just have a problem with all the hysteria it occasions.
That would have been possible back when I worked with babies, but it's adults now. They're too big. My only hope is that if it happens, all my patients will have your personality and I can just say "Good luck, bitches!" as I scoot out the back stairway.
He was more hunky and more clunky than Trump. The latter because he's a robot.
But babies would have been too small to make a good shield. They would have made better projectiles.
I do react badly to broad criticism of 'the green movement'. It isn't a mega-anything. Most green movers I know are just people in their spare time trying to draw attention to stuff that people obsessed by economic growth and so forth are not paying sufficient attention to. They get irritated with the egoism of a bloke like Lomborg - who does like the look of his own profile, let's face it - perhaps because many of them agree with him in private that much bigger steps are required sooner, but they in public carry on arguing for Kyoto/Paris-type agreements because they think something is better than nothing, and major symbolic acts can shift the mindset of the powerful. Trump leaving the Paris accord is a major symbolic act, so to speak only of its detailed effects is to miss the point.
Certainly green people I know believe in small is beautiful - like Lomborg in a sense - smaller, targeted work is what's needed. Both he and David Archer think we have to work at technological solutions, which will happen if we work hard enough at them. Well, maybe if they make their voices heard in the right places such things will happen but I see no sign of it yet. Whenever I've supported such stuff in the UK for instance - as when the Conservatives got in in 2010 saying they would be the greenest government ever - their support for green research and business rapidly fell by the wayside and someone like me feels a fool for ever trusting the bastards. The Tories did the dirty on nascent solar industry companies, for example, and have ditched the Green Development Bank - which I'm now pledging money to, in its newly privatised state, 'cause I believe in these small-scale initiatives writ large a thousand times over. I'm the sort of chump who owns a share in a local wind turbine. That's why I don't take well to feeling I'm being criticised in comparison to a chap like Lomborg (who has his scientific critics), who has some sparky ideas and also has some tropes that he knows will play well with parts of the media.
I don't think, incidentally, that Archer thinks we shouldn't cut down on emissions. My learning from him from way back when is that the effects are already longer-term than the populace thinks, and that only really drastic policies might have an effect now, including carbon capture storage and use. I personally agree with that, but I don't think it's a good reason not to buy into the next local turbine, or press for a Green economic policy, or make a hundred small changes locally to our river systems to mitigate the wave of floods we're experiencing where I live. In that sense I think Lomborg is a dangerous bloke because he waves at other policy initiatives that are purportedly better alternatives: this is not serious politics, it's wiseguyness, because for many people it's an excuse for more apathy.
-
Freeze them first.
"Must I also mention “Faust 3: The Turd Coming, or The Fart of the Deal,” a satire of Mr. Trump performed by a company of clowns? I must."
Thoughts on DUP coalition? Odds of May resigning?
I can't get enough of this Marmalade cat on youtube.
Changing from preferring cheap store brand chocolate ice cream to preferring even cheaper store brand vanilla is a sign of dementia. Switching downmarket brands of yogurt is a bad sign. Switching from prose to all-haiku in your posts would be a sign of deteriorating function.
Post a lot while you still can.
Some foods slow down the process of developing dementia. Pomegranate is not one of them. Neither is green tea. The best foods for slowing down (or stopping) dementia are dishes like mashed potatoes with roast pork; waffles with butter and wild blueberry syrup; creamy coleslaw with apples and bananas; fried chicken; sweet potatoes with cranberry sauce; devils food cake; blueberry pie; coffee with real cream (or at least real half & half.
No, but thinking they are is. >:)
LOL - I was thinking the same, but stopped myself from saying it :P
The right-wing papers are describing May as 'in office but not in power', which makes you feel maybe her time is up. I feel alarmed at the idea of the DUP being in part-coalition, but I doubt it can last.
The post-election surprise to me is that Scottish Conservatives are carving out a separate identity for themselves: insisting on protection for lgbt rights (as the DUP are so conservative in that area) and arguing for a softer form of Brexit. They too have a role in the delicate balance of power. It's quite hard to imagine how brexit negotiations are going to have a clear mandate from anyone; we in the uk might be in one of those democratic problem-situations where nobody can muster a majority for any given proposal.
The alliance with the DUP if it happens, would spell the end of power-sharing in N Ireland, already in abeyance, and quite possibly the resumption of what we never ever call the civil war. A price well worth paying to save the blushes of the tories - not even a little bit.
Personally, I blame the Scots; if they hadn't delivered 12 new tory MPs, it would have been out of the question. Oh the irony.
"Never trust a fart after turning 40."
Buahahahahhahaaa the truths older folks are willing to impart to a captive audience. 8-)
Lol, that's a good one. My Nephew showed me that one yesterday, it cracked me up pretty good.
This is an interesting way to put things!
Wittgenstein? Could be.
But...but...she's not white! And she was pregnant during filming!....
Was she really? I didn't know that... I just thought that they were so slow, posed after like every movement, and did a whole lot of big movements that seriously commit you to that movement, like flipping through the air and stuff. So lame...
I haven't seen it yet so I shouldn't comment. Just having a bit of fun, in the spirit of the shoutbox. It's getting rave reviews, though. So no good, in your view? DC seems to have a bad track record so far. Edit: or I guess Batman was DC though.
I enjoyed the time I spent with them, so I had a good time, but I didn't think it was that great, no.
Good to know. I'm not a movie buff, so I'll probably wait till it's out on media. My guilty pleasure is the Marvel movies, more so.
Yeah, I definitely like the Marvel ones too... but they should have tried a little harder on the greatest martial artist in the dc universe.
One of my friends over in UK told me that he bought a robot to mow his lawn, It looks like a humpy mower with no arms . He set it up to mow every 3rd day, and it takes about 3 hrs mowing with two charges. The mower knows when its getting low on juice or if starts to rain and it goes back to the charger refreshes itself or it wait out the rain (of course it has a moisture sensor to let it know when it is safe to get back at it). My friend does nothing, he does not even have to be around, he can operate it remotely by WiFi
Holly shit! I had a lawn I think I opt for the robot, although a big tractor is fun to ride (it becomes tiresome ... every 3rd day no way).
OK, I'm ready to agree with you on this now. May's nonsense desire to control and undermine the Internet is a big deal and needs to be stopped.
Well, British Conservatives aren't really conservatives :P
If you look at their positions on social issues, they're not that conservative at all.
That wasn't part of their manifesto.
Even when Cameron eats them?
Yes. Fucking a pig head is one thing, but eating babies is a red line.
That's crazy talk. He drew massive crowds, was far more energised than May, and defied expectations. May was dull, reserved and robotic. May would have never eaten the Pringle or high-fived a boob. Corbyn's a ledge, mate. He's the absolute boy.
And I so desperately miss Tony Blair~ What a man, what a mind, what a politician! (L)
What a despicable weasel, what a nuisance, what a thorn in Labour's side.
~swooning~ He still has it!
And we have another poodle in May.
Oh but mcdoodle, that very act of standing with absolutely no sunlight between the USA and the United Kingdom, when a few in the world brought us to our knees, will forever endear me to Tony and the UK.
Well one out of three isn't bad. (Y)
Within three seconds, like first active pose, the instructor was over groping me, so I was all like "thanks, that's okay" kind of thing, so she left me alone, but then just started criticizing everything I did, far less than covertly, so that people were starting to like look over their shoulders at me and stuff... so I just had to leave in the middle of it. Holy.
>:O
Everything you need is within you, not within me.
Woot!
You're the type that wants a different life, not to be a different person. That's half way there! So I'm not going to be that influential to you... but if I were rich, and had lots of stuff, I could be the biggest piece of shit imaginable, and you'd want to be me. Lol.
Is this what Putin said privately to Megyn Kelly the night before in his palace? >:O
Grow some balls and give me more content to go on.
I guess you win then.
Good night!
New Theory Nixes "Dark Energy": Says Time is Disappearing from the Universe
Jose Senovilla via The Daily Galaxy
Sep 2009
The search for dark energy
New Scientist index
If I recall correctly, @Michael's birthday is close to ours. Maybe it has already been and gone. Anyway, happy birthday, Michael. Edit: Wait, it's today! What good timing. If only that would happen more often. I've already forgotten to wish three of my closest friends a happy birthday on the day this year. And I can't remember this upcoming wedding date that I should know...
Yeah thanks. Birthdays are just another day to me really. We never celebrated those when I was growing up. I worked that day, then tried that yoga thing, then went home and everyone was busy really -- but it doesn't matter to me.
Happy b day to you and Michael as well!
Perhaps Uncle Fred is right even though such a view seems to lead to a cult of heroic individual leadership. What am I to do, though, with my positive feelings of mutuality? The joy of choir-singing, the nights of dancing with a hundred others, the sense of release of the mass demonstration at the football game or the political rally?
And how am I to account for the resentment of anti-egalitarians? How their envy or disdain of what they say is the undeserved privilege of others, compared to their own obvious-to-them entitlement, sometimes seems to warp their very being?
I recognize in myself both the instinct to follow and the instinct to lead. I can join the collective in the choir or I can stand up and lead. In fact that instinct to lead presses me the most when there is chaos and a big kahuna is required.
If I'm following Fred, it's not in regard to his conclusions, but just in trying to figure it out for myself.
What do you think?
I have both 'instincts' too. If you want something doing, ask a busy person, for instance: they will have stepped forward when everyone else responded to the call for volunteers by looking down at their papers/phones, or by nominating someone else, possibly you.
What I don't recognize empirically about Fred's claim is the strong resentment --> egalitarianism link. Of course there is one for some people, some time. But the feeling of fellowship/collectivity/mutuality...that seems a strong feeling in its own right. We are social animals, 'individualism' is a sophistication. Some people were in the Soviet Communist Party for good reasons - in a democratic country they would probably have been in a democratic party - and the loss of the word 'comrade' since 1990 is a genuine loss. Or so I figure :)
The thing is, that, as the gnostics say, the god of this world (your world) is either ignorant, or a prick, basically. We are super ready to think we're tops of the universe constantly. So, mirroring someone, stealing their strengths and overcoming their weaknesses, may leave one feeling that they've become the best ever, or broken into a special class of human being or something.
Nothing wrong with mirroring people to steal their strengths and overcome their weaknesses. Just don't look for their attention, don't try to impress them, and don't fucking become them. Throw away the raft when you're done with it, as Da Buddha would say.
But I do find myself hard to pin down! Where in turn does the emphasis on resentment in motivating egalitarianism take you?
When density increases resentment starts to boil. Maybe there's some selection for aggressive people. Egalitarianism is an avenue to stability.
I don't think it has anything to do with Jews or Christianity.
?
Understatement of the year. Without mutuality, only Ray Mears would survive, and he would only outlast the rest of us by a week before dying of lack of publicity.
Money and property are originally ways of systematising and regulating mutuality and preventing freeloading. Unfortunately the system no longer works very well because the freeloaders have learned to exploit it and turn it against us.
Cheers to hoping your special days were Awesome!
EDIT: Wait, seriously, 48 celcius? Yikes.
That's nothing, I played tennis 4 hours in the sun at that temperature once >:O Well not quite that temperature, just 46 celsius.
Yeah, I actually don't believe that, but good for you if you have :P
Right, and you and unenlightened complain about how easy capitalists have it.
Plays badminton, wears plaid, jerks off to leftist socialist politicians, hasn't gone to college but reads philosophy, likes cats and coffee...Sappy, you are indeed the Überhipster. Niezschszhsczhcschze would be proud!
[hide]This is a joke. Please unbutton your plaid shirt before the steam burns up my post. kthxbai[/hide]
Gorilla
Shit
Prove it.
So, wasn't super thinking of the consequences... but we'll see how things turn out, lol.
I have seen you take this leap of faith in yourself before Wos and you landed in a better place than you were before so I KNOW you will be okay. It will take some time to get through the path of change you are embarking on but you are past the trailhead so my advice to you is: keep doing what you are doing and remember to have faith in your self.
It's best not to think about how absolutely lung burning dry the air is right now. It truly feels like when you open an oven to put in a pizza and get blasted with the searing heat. I try really hard not to bitch about the heat but there comes a time when it gets to you. People are freaking cranky, no one holds a door for anyone and any extra questions are not appreciated. There was blip on tv that said people who are enduring the heat do become more selfish but it is so subliminal I never thought about it much. It makes sense as I imagine there are all kinds of self preservation instincts that kick in physiologically.
Oh really? I certainly didn't know that Captain Obvious.
Oh really? I certainly didn't know that Captain Obvious.
Immediately there was a fairly large (but peaceful) demonstration, blocking an interstate highway and shutting down the transit system for a while. ALL of the usual accusations were made about the police, the courts, the trial, and the jury. The chants, the signs, the news stories, were repeats of what had been said 100 times since the shooting a year ago.
There isn't any dispute that police officer Geronimo Yanez shot Philando Castile. What was alleged was that it wasn't necessary (for self protection) for Yanez to shoot Castile--making it a manslaughter case.
A large part of the case revolved around the gun Castile told Yanez he had in his pocket. After telling the officer he had the gun, Castile reached for -- something -- his ID or the gun, we don't/can't know which. Castile was under the influence of marijuana at the time. A factor? Don't know.
Why was Castile carrying a gun in his pocket during a routine trip to the grocery store with his family (which is what his girlfriend says they were returning from). Why does a school cafeteria worker need to carry a gun around?
It seems to me that if I, an elderly-ish white guy, was stopped by a cop, and I said "Hey, officer, I've got a gun in my pocket", and then reached for something in my pants -- maybe the requested driver's license, maybe the gun, maybe a cough drop -- that I would have a good chance of getting shot.
This was not a white-cop on black-guy crime. (FWIW, Mexican Americans are usually sorted into the people of color pile; since officer Yanez wasn't decidedly brown and was a cop, after all, the protestors reclassified him as white). It was a police on armed motorist event.
Driving while intoxicated with a gun in one's pocket is just not sensible behavior. Too many things can go wrong. People: THINK! Drive sober and don't buy, carry, or use guns for self-defense (or for other purposes). It usually doesn't work. Cops are armed with guns, the law, and public opinion. The cop probably won't be convicted and even if he or she is, it won't bring you back to life. People: WAKE UP! Get rid of your guns. The life you save might be your own.
I hope that things work out, kind of worried. I'm going to try to find a new job on monday, and then get ready for this. I can't say whether it was a mistake or not, I wasn't thinking of the consequences... for the nature of monkey was irrepressible.
Sounds familiar, I had a bout of depression late last year and wasn't capable of tolerating any bullsh#t whatsoever. I can also stubbornly persist in holding my own honesty / integrity as the highest value, often resulting in self-sabotaging behaviour when it comes to making life easy.
It might be worthwhile to remember that a lot of things which might be evident for you aren't as evident for others and that a lot of people have mental self defence mechanisms in place to protect them from thinking badly about themselves, or just from thinking...
It's more psychology then philosophy but Robert Kurzban's "Why Everybody (Else) is a Hypocrite" sheds some interesting insights into how and why this might work, Steven Pinker also has an interesting lecture about how / why we tend to use bullsh#t instead of telling others what we really think: (wonder if he will come out with a book about the topic in the near future) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eay1-m7RpoU and the topic of cognitive dissonance is probably something you're quite familiar with. Personally I'm hoping insights from psychology will make it easier in the future to be able to go through life without the need for so much delusion or pretending nobody knows what's actually going on.
On a side note, I thought I found someone with whom I wouldn't have to play pretend... seemed really genuine and there was some really deep communication. Being unable / unwilling to put up with what I'd call "crap" has prevented me from engaging in an intimate relationship (that and some other issues I have, lol) most all my life, imagine the irony that I now seem to be in the biggest sh#tshow of my life where I've impregnated a female who 'now' has her head so firmly stuck in the sand that any confrontational talk about our ordeal makes for the most amazing live cases of cognitive dissonance / coping strategies I've ever seen! (don't tell me it's the hormones!!!).
I'm addicted to stimulants. My environment isn't at all stimulating so I have to find ways to entertain myself and this source of getting one's kicks, sucks. It's been back and forth between legal means (It's America, you can get a prescription for even meth if you want) and semi-legal means of getting designer drugs close to the parent compound. Never let my habit turn into something illegal.
Psychologically I've told myself too many times that I need stimulants to function; but, that can't be true. Yet the suffering continues.
It isn't.
Go outside more. Occupy yourself with a hobby, and just go for more walks.
I agree with the walks. I'd also add exercise. I've been sitting down on a chair a lot more this year (partly because of the nature of my work) so apart from martial arts training / gym I haven't done much walking/running. A mistake. I should start going for walks too. Very powerful way to get your creativity and juices running!
If he's so bored that the environment isn't stimulating, he should make it into a goal to, for example, become the fittest person he knows in the next year. Doing that will open a lot more doors, and the environment will gradually change too.
Paul, Rousseau, Kierkegaard, they all met god while on a stroll. The reason they used to get you to lay down on your back in those couch dealies for therapy is because that positions increases blood flow, which helps you think more clearly. Plus, it stimulates communication between the hemispheres of the brain, because left foot, right foot, left foot, right foot. Which will spawn creativity.
My advice though, is watch the dissonance of the tempos of your two sides. They move at different speeds, with different rhythms. Attempt to better synchronize them.
Walking rules.
My name isn't Captain Obvious. It's Sergeant Subtle Irony.
Such as? :P
Life's job isn't to entertain or stimulate you. That takes work. Find an interest or you'll consume yourself until you really hit rock bottom and it may be too late. I'm into photography, keeps me out and about and creative. Anyway, your drug habit is a shortcut to nowhere. The only way out is suffering. Be a man and take it on the chin.
Pronounced Bay-den. It's not a word. Just a name. "Bad one" is fine too. I pronounce your name "Moon girl". 8-)
Whose job is it to stimulate me?
I'm incredibly adept at such nonsense, so if you need some pointers, just let me know.
For you, we may be talking more object than person.
That's one possibility I wouldn't discount. ;)
My head is already filled to the brim with nonsense excuses. I'll come back around when I need to top it back up.
Your cup runneth over. Empty it.
And if I do it enough, everyone will be pretty!
That'd be a little boring anyhoo.
Yeah, that's no fun... and while people may like you for saying agreeable things, they'll respect you for being yourself.
But I wanna be king of the fantasy!
That's great. Particularly the bar fight observation. Grappling is pretty much all I've ever seen as well (though I have seen a couple good ones), though I've never really hung out at bars. When I was in school I would just trip them over and over again usually until they stopped. I once got punched in the ear from behind though, that really sucked.
You definitely don't just hit the floor though, you go on to do a shit load of things you luckily won't remember. Though I once read someone speculate that we need to be in similar states, contexts, and environments to trigger recall, so perhaps you remember all of the stuff that happens to you while you're blacked out, from every other time you were blacked out! Lol.
You need to attend Trump University.
Don't bug me.
But actually I was struck by this picture. Ribera, 17th century Spaniard working in Naples, had a reputation apparently for the gory and violent, but did a whole series of 'philosophers' of which this is just one (reflection of gallery is not by Ribera :) ).
Don't mollusc.
Sadly, while I understand the importance of work and its positive effects on fending off boredom, I am in the process of applying for disability where I live.
Philosophy stimulates me to a good extent; but, I guess I've developed some tolerance to it or whatever as of late.
I appreciate the advice though and understand that it's important to keep a healthy amount of enthusiasm and interest in the diversity and unpredictability that life entails.
Quoting WosretYou shouldn't quit a job until you have a replacement.Quoting WosretYou should never drink again.
What is your disability?
Mental health issue. Paranoid schizophrenia.
I really wish there was some genetic test to objectively say that s/he has it or not, as the ambiguity is just terrible. I take my meds regardless and continue functioning dysfunctionally.
When I said "that takes work", I didn't mean a job necessarily. I mean try to express yourself in some creative way rather than let the world define you. Of course if you're battling mental health issues that's an extra challenge.
But, but! The world is the totality of facts, not things, and whereof one cannot speak thereof one must remain silent! (Y)
That's not necessarily true now. What if he has 10,000 saved up in the bank?
All they do is go to houses that need roofs done and ask them if they want it done, and give them an estimate. Do that for a whole day, and they'd usually always get at least one. And then the momentum will keep things going with referrals, and people coming right over to ask me about it.
I was going to just get another job, but now I'm thinking that I'll just start my own business. Doing all of that red tape and government stuff is going to suck. I don't have much patience for it.
See how this works out. Even if it doesn't, and I decide to do something else, I could turn my truck over for at least 5k pretty quickly. I won't have trouble moving, or getting another place, or getting another job.
I'll try the challenging, risky thing with the highest possible pay off first though.
Great idea man! (Y) Wish you a lot of success! Not familiar with Canadian law, but I'm quite familiar with general business practice, so if you need any help, post a question in the Shoutbox and I'll answer you!
The general idea though is that most often people who first get started waste too much time dealing with red tape and government. It's better to make mistakes and fix them on the go than to get everything right and spend 4x the time.
Quoting Wosret
Absolutely, you can start a business out of mostly anything. But don't forget to save up or re-invest a large share of your earnings to keep an edge. If you're doing something local, once you have earnings, one of the best things you can do is setup a website and a Google Adwords campaign on relevant keywords. The amazing thing about this is that you can use Google's Keyword Planner, check for keywords, and, say your business is dog walking, you can select your local area and check how many people are searching for "dog walking New York" for example. That gives you a good idea of how much market you'd be able to reach online (that would automate your business model faster, as you won't have to go as much in-person looking for deals).
Printing flyers, etc. to spread around once you've got earnings (once again, that part is very important) is also an idea that I've seen work quite successfully for some.
Don't forget to grow some cash crop in a spare place now that its legal in Canada, or if its still not then maybe a medical card could let you do that. Pays the utility bills and mortgage. In gonna try and convince my mom if I can grow indoors to pay the bills. Already grow in the backyard but nobody buys outdoor stuff.
like a boss
>:O >:O >:O
Question, please be careful in how you mix your Psyche meds and drugs like Meth and Cannabis. Both can have adverse effects on Paranoid schizophrenia without combining them with formal prescribed medications. And yes, I think you are highly intelligent and know this possible effect but sometimes it helps to be reminded.
I am not sure about Canada but it's possible that if you start your own business, that truck of yours can become a company asset and you can take that $5k right off the top of your taxable income.
Typically people smoke/cook/vaporize/eat/consume their own produce since there's a six plant limit, at least where I live. California produces most of the cannabis for the US, so despite it now being legal and in 2018 commercial growing will be legal prices will still be at some decent level until it gets legalized federally. Furthermore, we have pretty limited knowledge about what the cannabinoids that are present in Cannabis do apart from CBD, THC, and some others. So, expect more positive research in regards to the medical use of marijuana to maintain demand also for therapeutic use for all sorts of problems unrelated to immunological disorders like Crohn's disease or psoriasis, cancer, etc.
Besides making money it's a pretty therapeutic and grounding hobby. I don't spend hours looking at my plants; but, seeing them grow is a nice thing to see in your backyard.
Lastly, the people you deal with in regards to sale or just bartering your produce are pretty cool. So, you get to meet new friends and people.
Positive vibrations, yah gettin' me man? :_)
How do you advertise it haha? How do you get your leads?
Quoting Question
I didn't say it's bad haha, just found your phrase "cash crops" funny!
Quoting Question
Indeed.
Yes, I'm well aware of the dangers, and my mother is all too well aware, rather, unfortunately.
It looks like I've made a full circle for the matter. I really wish I could just dump the habit; but, the psychological addictive component is already there. The proverbial monkey on the back won't go away. So, I've made up my mind to not play around anymore with designer drugs and just stick to a prescription for Concerta and just stick to that.
There are some ways to advertise your product. Most of the time it's just browsing Craigslist or some other online advertising platform specifically tailored to pot growers and sellers.
Your best bet and this is if you know what you're doing (by which I mean, you are growing some high-grade shit), you can directly speak with dispensaries/clubs and see what they think or how much they're willing to pay for your pot.
I can't sense the valence of this affirmation. Are you being ironic, sarcastic, or just making fun of what I said?
:_)
Sounds like quite a fun business to start. As this is an online board you don't have to answer this, but I bet many people doing this don't even have an LLC (or whatever the American equivalent is) setup, so... no taxes ;)
Yup, it's cash all the way home.
The greatest expense here is not merely the fact that your mother has suffered and perhaps that a number of wonderful opportunities have in all likelihood been missed, but that your experience of the world will remain profoundly limited by these illusions.
Oh, you've misunderstood me entirely. The mental illness started before any of these hobbies started in the first place. So, no, the pot or the stimulants were not the cause of the illness. More like a form of self-medication.
Good.
One who is susceptible to such mental illness has a greater propensity to either trigger or indeed worsen the symptoms of something like schizophrenia. It always astonishes me how one so intelligent could lack such intelligence when it comes to taking control of his own life; such incredibly low self-esteem.
Emotions can't be reasoned with.
Yes, they can. You just need the courage.
Be very careful in looking to make cash off a plant that still remains in Federal legal jeopardy.
If you say so.
Whoa...easy on the judgement of others until you have walked in their shoes.
As he said, emotions can't be reasoned with.
Yup, I had a friend who owned a dispensary and got shut down by the Feds. Not a happy world to be in legally.
Quoting Agustino
Mmmmmmm I am going to walk away before I say something that I might regret. >:O
Caring about people' feelings is irrelevant if the facts are clear. He refuses to face the facts because he is emotional and you are trying to care, albeit doing a really bad job of it.
LOL. Didn't anyone tell you that the devil is the most perfect rationalist? O:)
I wish I organized all my files and stuff in regards to the research behind marijuana, but a quick rundown is that cannabis high in THC can hasten the onset of schizophrenia and psychosis. There is another major component of marijuana (one of many) that prevents the risk of having or possibly even developing schizophrenia. That cannabinoid is called CBD. I specifically try to avoid strains high in THC and low in CBD for the matter.
There's plenty of scientific literature out there that point out that Cannabis high in CBD as well as THC negates the psychosis-inducing effects of THC. So, what I'm growing in my backyard is called ACDC, it's a strain of cannabis that is very high in the ratio of CBD to THC.
To put the nail in the coffin, there's also research, though I don't have any meta-studies on the matter, that THC alone does not increase the predisposition to becoming schizophrenic. I can occasionally smoke pot high in THC and not experience any negative effects, as long as I'm in a safe place and alone. Being with people and smoking pot overwhelms me so, I try not to do that with people despite pot being quite a social drug.
Anyway, to just end my monolog, it's not true that Cannabis is solely responsible for schizophrenia in individuals with the predisposition. Furthermore, if one IS schizophrenic, then one can consume cannabis safely if it is cannabis low in THC and high in CBD. So, there.
The conviction is strong in this post. Are you really that against marijuana? Its a harmless plant with fascinating potential to treat a whole range of medical ailments.
Faced
Leicester
Yep. Damn Christians.
Unethical to smoke marijuana?
The truth is that most schizophrenics engage in recreational drug use as an attempt to self medicate. It's part of the illness, so you can lay off the moralizing, as if that'd be an effective way to control the disease. You're also doubtfully correct about much of what you say. His condition will likely be as it will be regardless of the pot he smokes or doesn't smoke. He's already acknowledged that's it's brought him to being declared disabled, so your two cents worth about how he ought to deal with this must come across as fairly useless.
Selling illegal substances is unethical.
That is like saying that most cancer patients smoke cigarettes as an attempt to self medicate. There is no moralising here, it quite simply is unreasonable and lacks intelligence, paradoxical considering that he is highly intelligent and yet incapable of looking after himself.
Well, many do, but the cigarettes are filled with marijuana.Quoting TimeLine
Again, his getting high now and again is the least of his problems. Do you recall his sharing with you that he is schizophrenic?
>:O
It is not the least of his problems, it is his problem. He already acknowledged that it brought him to being declared disabled, as you yourself said, and if he has the capacity to sustain an intelligent conversation, clearly he has the capacity to reason, so what you say is irrelevant.
It is not illegal in California :-}
Your whole points are laughable at best. You remind me exactly of the Communist bureaucrats. They too cared only about what is rational, and didn't care about feelings at all. That's why communism was such a fucking hell-hole.
Quoting TimeLine
This is precisely how totalitarianism is born. If your child starts smoking pot, you'll go hysterical 'cause the facts are clear. You know, I suggest you fuck the facts.
It is incredible how smart people can sometimes be so heartless to say idiotic stuff like this.
And by the way selling something illegal isn't necessarily unethical. Maybe it's illegal to sell a medicine which can save a woman's life, but you sell it nevertheless to save her. Is that unethical? What kind of bullshit ethics has Kant shoved in your brain?
Black
Face
So when a government agency regulates a substance and prohibits its sale, that decree comes from Mt. Sinai and it is thereby immoral?
I think she's saying that it's unethical to break the law.
I'm done with the stuff now. I'm not very good at moderation when it comes to substances. I'm better at reaching maximum saturation in the shortest time possible.
Yes, I think that's the case if Hanover is in charge of that government agency.
Quoting Hanover
Yes, that is what's rational to do, who cares about their feelings! :s
Weird
Three-Word
Shit
Is
This?
:s
A
Small
Poem
It isn't necessarily. Obviously it's immoral to comply with an unethical law.
However, the Mt Sinai scenario isn't about ethics by some reckonings because it was part of a covenant.
You
A
Poet?
I agree.
What do you think about ACT therapy in regards to pain management?
I never heard of a commandment thou shalt not smoke weed but clearly the consistent use of faulty reasoning is a rather regular habit for those in defence of drug-use. Again, your comments are irrelevant.
Quoting Hanover
Where was it ever said that pot use is worse than schizophrenia?
There are a number of serious dangers inherent to buying, using and selling illicit drugs notwithstanding the epidemiological and the legal and clear evidence shows that marijuana has adverse effects on those who are susceptible to mental health disorders. Since Question is experiencing the debilitating effects of a very serious mental health disorder, to ignore such research is irrational and it would be wrong of me - if I actually cared for Question rather than cared for my own emotional and personal beliefs on the subject - to endorse his continued substance abuse that research has shown worsens his specific pre-existing condition. He is capable of reasoning as he is highly intelligent so it is not pointless of me to express this disconcertment of his inability to take care of himself and improve his condition.
Nope. You stated that the illegality of the use made it immoral. The two are not logically interconnected. The fact that a legislator says something is illegal or immoral is what is irrelevant.
A paranoid schizophrenic who smokes pot doubtfully has a worse prognosis than one who doesn't.
Really, and you adequately obtained this research from?
ACT therapy would be additional. Only so far a good and healthy attitude can get you. Often times physical pain will override sheer positivity.
One study on specific symptoms has no bearing on the amount of cannabis used by individuals and the differences of cognitive functioning that enable some people to be more susceptible to its adverse effects than others. The study is also not longitudinal so not good enough.
I have to declare an interest here as an ex drug-crazed hippie, But I think you have the right of it, by and large. Schizophrenia is already a condition of being 'pretty far out' , and what is wanted is more so a good trip guide than additional stimulation. The distinction between legal and illegal drugs is a bit of a side issue.
If I had to guess, I wouldn't have guessed you were a drug type of guy. You seem very intelligent and self-controlled. Typically people who abuse substances have a lesser degree of self-control.
Quoting Heister Eggcart
I have a friend who works with patients in chronic pain (generally nothing can be done to stop their pain, similar to your friend) using ACT, and apparently it's more effective for some than straight CBT, MBSR or prescribing things like anti-depressants and painkillers. But it is true that it does require some effort from the patients, and it does take significant involvement with a therapist to adequately get the patients to apply mindfulness and CBT principles while actually dealing with the pain.
It's an interesting one. I like to think that we can handle any pain - or at least should be prepared to do so. As a child/teenager the worst pain that I just couldn't handle was stomach pain. Muscle pain, back pain, teeth pain, broken bones etc. wasn't much of an issue to me. The worst pain was probably when I got a stomach infection, constant pain, couldn't even sleep for several days because of the pain (fever + diarrhea) even though I was extremely tired. It was kind of a mind-numbing experience. That sensation of your head falling down, but yet not being able to sleep because of the pain was hellish. And I don't know, there's something about stomach pain that makes it completely different from other types of pain and it just feels much worse for me.
Lately however, I seem to be a lot less troubled and better able to deal with pain when I get things like stomach aches. I seem less sensitive to them, and feel more in control. I was actually surprised last time it happened, that I could bear it with relative ease compared to before. I do eat very healthy nowadays though. I have also been obsessed in my life with managing pain, not being overcome by it, resisting it, etc. Looking for ways to become stronger - that's been one of my main focuses for a long time, and not complaining while under pain. So I guess that plays a role too.
Obviously, in a perfect world it would be best not to indulge in any mind altering substances; but, we obviously don't live in a perfect world.
Furthermore, the THC in cannabis makes one quite paranoid and suspicious in certain individuals, and I fall in that category too, I try and limit my exposure to the safety of my domestical before bed at night when my mind seems to pick up more so than during the day.
Finally, schizophrenia is co-morbid with many other disorders like depression, anxiety, and ADHD. So, there's a lot going awry with the schizophrenic. I guess it's a form of self-medication that helps sooth the mind in where exploitation is the norm and one is a broken 'product', to begin with.
Yes, twice.
Once when the symptoms first appeared and a second (most recent) time when the denial of the gravity of the disorder subsided.
I've been diagnosed as a teenager with OCD, hypochondria, generalised anxiety disorder (GAD). Granted how I've evolved, I think the diagnoses were wrong. In fact proving my doctor wrong was one of the things that most motivated me. In my experience, you can get identified with the label, and then you actually do start feeling that way permanently. It's like flipping a switch in the brain. Imagine looking at a red ball, and suddenly the ball isn't red anymore, but yellow. That's how the change feels.
And it depends from person to person. I used to be very hypochondriac as a teenager, but I've studied diseases a lot, and as my understanding of the body grew, suddenly I wasn't hypochondriac anymore. To me, it was perfectly rational. I mean if you don't understand what can go wrong with your body, what the symptoms would be, what you need to watch out for, etc. how the hell can you not be afraid? I always thought most people are just stupid - I mean they're ignorant as fuck, unaware of all the dangers that surround them. Most doctors would say that's not normal, blah blah blah, but they're judging based on the "average" person (have no clue how they determine that in truth). Well, I'm not the average person, and it turned out that it was exactly as I thought, after I learned and studied, I wasn't afraid anymore.
I have an aversion to psychiatry, to begin with. There's a great deal of pressure to find a label to diagnose the patient with and prescribe medication for the condition or disorder.
I'm still waiting for more objective tests, such as genetic testing that can in some objective manner remove the subjectivity surrounding psychiatry of making a diagnosis on people.
If I have to be very honest with you, I do feel a lot of so called "mental illnesses" are made up by doctors. Most people do have lots of weird quirks and stuff. If they actually went to a doctor and honestly spoke about all of them, they'd exit there diagnosed with something for sure. On the other hand, some people do have serious conditions, but the way they speak about them to their doctors (not telling the whole truth, lying) they don't get diagnosed.
To me it's quite simple: if you can function (that is defined quite simply as being able to take care of yourself, cook, clean, etc. being able to interact with other people without raging, yelling, screaming, insulting, etc. being able to earn an income (that doesn't have to be a traditional job though, or something that involves some other activity that you don't like - for me driving would be such an activity for example, so if I had to work as a driver I'd actually go insane), being able to engage in productive activities which bear fruits and that you enjoy) - then you are normal. Doesn't matter if you like to arrange your water bottles at night for 10 minutes, etc. those are relatively insignificant, so long as they don't prevent the functioning mentioned above.
I had some dealings with new onset schizophrenia (when I worked for a children's hospital). Do you hear voices?
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
Ahh, as if things were so simple. Psychiatry has yet to qualify what it means to 'function'.
No, I don't hear voices. Amen.
You're probably deaf then.
I love showing off my speed as well. No one has seen anyone as fast as me. I'm twice as fast as a rattlesnake. Four at least, sometimes five strikes a second with one arm. You can barely detect my movement, and as long as they aren't telegraphed you wouldn't even have time to flinch before I hit you twice.
Just like in argumentation though, I prefer countering. My reflexes, and everyone's sluggishness makes this not a risk for me, and being attacked makes me feel justified in retaliation. I thought someone was going to attempt to hit me awhile ago, and was ready to take their fucking head off when they tried, but unfortunately it was all posturing.
Not only are they slow as shit, but most people swing their arms, only landing with their two weakest, outside knuckles, and I could just take that without receiving much damage.
You know that movement speed is directly correlated with confidence?
Or your eyes got older and you now need glasses.
The mention of psoriasis had me flummoxed for a moment, but then I remembered that stress can aggravate it. Fortunately, my psoriasis is limited to the scalp, and coal tar shampoo is very effective.
How else could people get hold of them to take for recreational purposes? They should wait and hope for the law to change? Nah.
Are you a weed-smoking guy bruv?
My favourite sheep. I found one of their skulls in a field once and took this photo:
I remember he posted something about Bill Gates shagging Zuckerberg's wife >:O
I even played on it, but none of you caught up to it:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/51340#Post_51340
That's nothing. I was once stoned for 10,000 years straight whilst playing badminton non-stop in the centre of the sun and winning every match.
Only for a few months :P
Yeah, I knew that quine was mosesquine but forgot that mosesquine had been banned. I just thought he'd changed his name.
But I was quick to pick up on him coming back as some logician.
He came back again a couple of more times. And we banned him a couple of more times. He's not exactly discreet.
Don't hate me... :)
49 degrees? Jesus. I thought the 28 degrees I'm getting here is hot.
Are you melting @ArguingWAristotleTiff?
Hah, yes I haven't even noticed that before. I haven't seen his posts though as some logician. That was a thread I never checked.
I happen to believe that "caring about peoples feelings" is never irrelevant and can be quite valuable in life. As far as my actually caring about Question? I could give a flying fig what your perspective is on it as there was no "trying" involved, it genuinely comes from my heart to him.
Who were you playing with?
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/79034
Good golly. That is beautiful on so many levels that one wonders if some level of enlightenment could be reached by contemplating it. The symmetry, the colors, birth and death and rebirth. It is filled with serene silence and dynamic energy both. Thank you very much for sharing that! Definitely frame-able.
Trying is to adequately reason how your actions will enable the greatest positive change rather than indirectly being motivated by a psychological egoism.
The ram is a symbol of virility so it seems to say: this is where it ends, beside a clump of grass in a scotch pasture, so what were you afraid of?
(Y) There is quote whose author i can't quite remember: "Death approachs on fearful monstrous wings, but when it reaches you, its kiss is sweeter than a lover's." (A giant stuffed panda doll for anyone who correctly guesses the author. I'm sure that is not the exact quote, but hopefully close enough.) Or maybe as another saying puts it: death is the opposite of birth, not of life.
I don't know. I was hoping someone could remember it! If I didn't garble the quote too badly, that is. Trying to google it, with no success. :D
Apollo.
Oh, way better recollection of details, I must always have cheat sheets at hand, that's what makes you better. Fuck you Daniel. You get ignored forever now, but you won't do the same. My blood is too delicious, and you're a fucking leech.
That nonsense above signifies that I'm loosing interest in everything that I used to like... it's all seeming so poo lately. Getting close to moving though, going to go view a place today, hopefully that goes well and I get it. I'm really looking forward to moving to (omit name of place is probably best), nothing to do around here
I've gone in/sane. Everyone used to think that I was smart and great... not so much lately... but my health has never been as good.
I'm done pitying everyone is all, they're getting my true opinions from now on.
Oh, oh... no more Mr. Nice Guy. Guess I'd better mind my Ps and Qs from now on!
No, it's unhealthy to repress, or lie, or pretend... so regardless of the consequences, you still gotta do it.
Preach, brother! (Y) (Y) (Y)
Quit complaining guys.
What the hell did they put in it? >:O
Yes, you might get heat stroke at 24ºC!
I don't care how dry the air might be, 122º F is too damn hot.
I was listening to this guy, and I don't know. This Jung stuff is quite inane I think. I'm not a big fan of Jung because his whole mythological reinterpretation of religion combined with his psychologism makes everything very mushy. Like if religions really only point to psychological aspects of ourselves, then what the fuck is the world fundamentally? If religions and metaphysics are just symbols for understanding our own psychology, nothing external, then it's really not that fucking interesting to tell you the truth. Unconscious, archetypes, etc. why does it all matter, unless, we can pinpoint the nature of the world, and what place this unconscious, etc. has in it. Otherwise it seems to be besides the point, it effectively drains all the meaning out of metaphysics and religion.
No, one in a trailer park. Some people consider them the worst, below apartments... but I think that strangers in the same building is inferior.
Found a friend. Held him tight. Cursed the day for taking my face.
True story. Every bit of it.
That's right! The mobility is a feature!
Not with cash, I was paying it off, and from buddy I was working for. I didn't want to live there, I took it for the security of owning a home in another three years or so. Instead it trapped me, and I'm paying like 2k a month on gas with the two vehicles. Plus just the nickle and dining of buying more expensive local stuff out of town. It just costs me way more to live in a shithole. I won't really even make that much less with a shittier job cutting those expenses.
Still out and on my phone have to checks that stuff out when I get home tonight.
Maybe I over reacted. I just felt like the vulnerability I showed was immediately capitalized on, and I ain't gonna lie, it hurt. I claimed to be able to take the few billion small cuts, and I can't just turn a blind eye to everything that offends me, no matter how much. I attempted to frame it covertly enough to not inspire any retaliation, but so that they'd know that I meant them.
I can be so fragile. Never mind the spiteful comment. I'm over it.
My guess is that you're the dude in the centerish with the lighter collar shirt?
Fortune favours the brave. (Y)
(Except when it doesn't. Let's not talk about that.)
Spidey sense?
I'm totally guessing, lol.
I'll back ya for a dolla.
Thanks for the guesses :) I'm in the blue shirt, I still have a little hair but it's gone white :)
I don't even see anyone in a blue shirt?
On the up side, now everyone is communicating with everyone else again! Brought my mom to my sisters a couple times in the last couple of days. Hanging out with her new BF, a psychology student taking his masters. He's a shy, quiet, apologetic guy, that is terrified of reptiles... wrong family to get involved with, lol. But they hadn't spoken in like a year. Even my little sister sent a friend request to my mom on facebook, so they'll hopefully be mending things soon as well. Everyone is super stoked to get out of this shit hole.
Oh, out of the middle of no where with things to do... I'ma start moving my stuff right away. My sister went to spend the weekend in Edmonton with her BF and eldest, so Dad has the twins, and I kind of don't want to leave though, particularly on the weekend, in case someone shows up here, and I don't want my dad escalating things.
I'm feeling great though, spending time around everyone constantly, and as long as I telling them my horrible opinions all the time, I don't feel the need to escape! Plus, my health is getting better and better everyday. Probably mow the lawn here, like I've been putting off, but promised to do.
I don't plan to try to start roofing immediately, I'd prefer to get a job where there are peers, and women. People my own age. You really only relate well to people your own age, because you have a hell of a lot of the same cultural influences, and understand each other the best.
So, yeah, that's what's been going on with me. Fun fun, silly willy.
What would the world look like Eggcartus if we installed @TimeLine behind the buttons of power? :s She'd be smokin' her hashish while talking to some female servants (because she has trust issues), poor @Question would be in a rehabilitation camp to be trained to be a rationally autonomous agent who obeys the authenticity of his dialectical subjectivity by not growing pot, while us two would be slaving away in a gulag, forced to listen and recite TimeLine's essays in order to be capable of becoming "real men", not boys >:O >:O
Yeah, I tend to tune out when he gets into the Jung stuff, as I find that very muddled and smacking of the perennialism I have come to loathe. But he's still one of the few professors who is actively taking a stand against radical left wing campus politics and postmodernism. That's his real bread and butter, IMO.
It's pot with very little THC if that means anything to anyone prejudiced against pot with THC (most pot nowadays).
To be honest, I've grown to appreciate Jordan Peterson, he's certainly better than 95%+ of famous intellectuals you find out there today. There's a lot one can learn from him, and there's certainly a huge amount an average young person could learn from him (life-changing). At the same time, I still don't think he's "the real deal" either (his book Maps of Meaning is unnaturally expensive, and he is a very salesmany kind of guy in an indirect way too)
When you listen to, for example this (a very interesting debate):
You see that Peterson doesn't really have much bread to offer. He claims to be a Christian, but as a Christian he would count as a heretic very easily. The point being that his mythological/Jungian interpretation of religion empties religion of all significant meaning. If religion is just a set of symbols doing nothing more than describing our own psychology (and psychological development), then it is useless. It's useful merely as a pragmatic tool, but useless in answering the big questions: why are we here, where is the world going, what is our purpose in the world, and how should we live. The whole purpose of religion (and metaphysics) is to go beyond our own psychology.
I don't mean to say there isn't any truth in the mythological approach, there certainly is, and religion is certainly symbolic, but it's not something purely psychological. You can find the same ideas and better in Voegelin & Girard. The problem with Peterson is that he's ultimately a psychologist - not a philosopher or a mystic.
I need that dearly.
You need to contact TimeLine then :P . Just joking man, don't contact her, she'll drive you crazy lol
Yes, I was turned off by the price as well. I tried reading a little bit from his book and couldn't follow it very well either. He's a better speaker than writer, it seems.
Quoting Agustino
Exactly.
It seems to be free on his own site: https://jordanbpeterson.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Peterson-JB-Maps-of-Meaning-Routledge-1999.pdf
It's 6:15 am and 91* headed up to 115* a real cool front is blowing through eh? From here we will be adding in the humidity to get to July 13th is my guess, when the Monsoons kick in. Yippee! :-!
Good Lord I cannot even IMAGINE the AC bill. I mean I can calculate it but I don't want to scare ya! O:)
This is awesome to read Wosret! You did well in taking that leap of faith!
But Twitter got your buddy elected. If I sold one rug it would make the time well spent.
However, his wife? Who (no love lost here) was confident that my Dad would never be able to come home again to his condo, that he pays for but she lives in? Well she is having to find an excuse for every time he wants to come home for an hour. She is 3 for 3 on convincing him that he cannot come home on three different days but my Dad is very suspicious in nature and oh my my my..... >:O
Twitter is a funny space 378 million users up from 317 million last year. There are 48 million bots that tweet, which means you might be following an algorithm and not a human. A cult of faux personality, which is why Trump fits right in.
In a country where its leader habitually presents falsity as truth and truth as falsity, what does honesty mean?
Do you think Obama was more honest? Or just better at PR?
Thanks a lot. I really think so too. Things seem to be moving forward now when I felt like things were stagnating.
My advice for the day.
Do you think college is that useful? :P I haven't found that to be true in my life.
Maybe someday I'll be civilized enough for that.
So yes, it is that useful, despite your not yet seeing it.
I understand why you think this way, you're a lawyer (if Im not mistaken), and for your profession University is a must.
More than double is not a big difference?
Yes, even that wouldn't be a big difference because the sums in question are still relatively small. It's like telling me make $1 dollar or $5. Sure, 500% difference, so what? It's fucking $5 for God's sake, it's not gonna be anything big. People are deceived by percentages - one of the MOST common ways to be deceived in today's world.
People think "Hurr hurr" I'll get that college degree, I'll make 40% more income :s - yeah if you're lucky, because not everyone who gets that college degree will. But what's the point? You're being stupid. You're going to work so hard to make just 40% more? :s If income is your criteria then you should be asking yourself how can I make 300K/year? If you're going to work hard at making an income, at least that's the kind of numbers your should aim for. And college most certainly ain't going to be an answer to that.
Now if you want to go to college because you're passionate about something - say philosophy - or you really want to be a certain profession - like a doctor or a lawyer, which absolutely requires a college degree, then sure, go for it. But otherwise if income is your sole criteria, you're just being a retard.
$50,000 a year isn't a small amount.
Depends where you live. For the US/UK that is still a relatively small amount. For Eastern European countries, Russia, etc. that's a hefty amount already - like around $100-150K would be in US/UK.
But generally that's peanuts. Most people don't understand that, because they think in terms of salaries. Salaries aren't what you should be considering, but rather earning potential. Even some of my very small clients make $50K per year and more in revenue from their businesses (and these are literarily some of my smallest clients). Now of course that's revenue, not profit, but revenue indicates earning potential. If they grew their businesses significantly, they would be able to capture a larger percentage of that too.
I live in the UK, and it isn't a small amount.
But, of course, you've thrown in that term "relatively" that could make your claim trivially true. Relative to a millionaire it's a small amount, obviously. But relative to someone earning $40,000, it's a lot.
For a person it isn't, but for a business it's nothing. As I said, I'm thinking about earning potential, not salaries, or the fact you can buy more expensive lip stick, or shoes or bullshit like that. That's still pennies. If you make $100,000/year you're not rich, not even close. Rich means having sufficient money to be able to use it to direct the course of your society - like George Soros. Everything else is pennies, it's not a lot of money.
:s give me a break, if I earned 40K I wouldn't lift a finger to be able to earn 80K, as it would make no difference. You can live just as well with 40K, because you live smart and under your means, just as you can with 80K. That's not going to make a difference to anyone. To put additional effort would require my earning potential to be much larger, so that I would actually have what to do with that extra money.
But we're talking about a person earning $90,000 instead of $40,000, not a business earning an extra $50,000 (which would still be a lot for a low-earning business).
It's going to make a different to a lot of people, even if not to you. I, for one, could seriously do with an extra $50,000 (or, rather, the equivalent £39,255.71).
What would you do with it? >:O Let me guess... apply for a mortgage, get a new, bigger and more expensive house, buy a nicer car, etc. you think that is anything but pennies? :s
I know some people who earn ~80K/year, and they're absolutely not living better lives than me, and I don't earn even close to that.
Move out of my tiny, 3-room counsel flat for one.
It's far more than just pennies.
What makes your 3-room flat so terrible that you absolutely have to move out of it? Do you think moving out of that flat is the key to your happiness?
It's tiny. Far too small for two of us, a dog, and a cat.
And I don't know why you're asking if I think it's the key to my happiness. I haven't said it was. I said that $50,000 isn't a small amount, and that it'll make a difference to a lot of people.
Yeah, that kind of money would make that kind of a difference for me too. But I'm aware it's not a significant difference, and it is ultimately unimportant, more of a luxury than anything else.
Of course, your claim that $40k versus $90k is insignificant only points to your lack of actually living in the world, having a family, and having all sorts of bills unrelated to an extravagant lifestyle.
None of this addresses the other issue which was the crux of my comments to Wosret, which was that he could elevate his life situation if he got a college degree in terms of dealing with a better sort of person and having a more stimulating job. It's not just about money. An office job beats roofing for many reasons.
Yeah, I know you, we've been through this before, money doesn't motivate you to do anything, only force does. You don't lift a finger without being forced to do it.
Yeah, in 20 years $1m will not be that significant even. I'd have to invest that $50k and risk it, otherwise inflation will be eating it out like a bitch, especially as the lump sum grows. And making additional $50k every year in a job will take a lot harder work, which is not worth the effort for the reward. You won't be working 9-5, you'll be working 9-9 >:O - I have a few friends doing that right now in fact. Let's see if in 10 years they'll be better off than me.
Quoting Hanover
Well I didn't know that I'm living on Mars. No I don't have a family, but the bills are absolutely not that difficult to cover, and I have built some savings already. The bills only become difficult to cover if people are stupid, get a mortgage, etc.
Quoting Hanover
Except that a job at an office has little possibility for explosive growth, unless you're working in an industry like IT/tech, or one of the leading firms in fields like pharmacy. You'll be stuck slaving away there your whole life, but there's more interesting things you should be doing with your life.
Quoting Hanover
A 5% annually compounded interest rate for 20 years will get me to a meagre 1.7 million, so definitely not a multi-millionaire. And that's assuming that I get those 5% interest AFTER INFLATION compounded annually over 20 years, which is not that bad of a return for an investment, and I don't get wiped out in an economic crisis.
People don't actually get this, but investments aren't a way to become wealthy, they're a way to stay wealthy when you already have many millions in the bank. If you just throw in your 50K pennies, it ain't gonna make a big difference for you.
To be a multi-millionaire in the real sense of the term you need high earnings, not 1 million in the bank. What does high earnings mean? Starting from 300K/year or 25K/month - that's when you start being financially powerful.
Look at this:
Why do you think Buffett isn't outperforming the S&P500 that much anymore? The more money you have the more difficult it is to beat inflation and compound at high interest rates. Those who are already rich love playing this game and talking about economic growth, etc. because that's THEIR growth.
When you're poor, what you should be looking for is explosive growth, not petty another 50K/year, ain't gonna make a big difference.
Quoting Metaphysician Undercover
It would motivate me, if the additional work would have the potential of getting me big earnings, but for another 50K, it's not worth the bother.
Could you work with your spouses parent 3 days a week?
Inherent risk located: any negative spoken about the In Law is obviously something your partner will wholeheartedly accept. Nope. Somehow my fault.
Lesson learned? Blood is thicker than water.
Problem? I thought I learned this lesson a longggggggggggggg time ago and would have remembered how powerful it can be.
Seriously disappointed in thyself.
Proud of being able to remain Stoic in front of my 17yr old indian, while fielding criticism when I really wanted to break down crying.
Returning to work? Yes
Happy about it? Teaching a work ethic to my indian is far more important than any criticism of me or my spouse as an adult.
Breathing.......getting there....
You've been married over 20 years and have 2 kids with him. You're not water. I've never heard this expression mean that "blood" only meant those actually in the blood line instead of including all family members, which obviously you are.
That's a solid refutation >:O
I also notice that he loosens his left hand sometimes when striking, losing alignment on impact, turning it into more of a palm smack. None of this matters all that much though, when you're as smart as he is. Logic is all about timing, and he is great at timing.
There is also the age difference. Negative experiences are remembered much better than positive ones (presumably you have more to learn from them), so the older one gets, the more hesitant, the less bold.
My lack of money is still on Mayweather though, just because I favor speed and instinct over analysis.
That's not that terrible if the floor is relatively clean. In my case it was actually dirty, as in visibly dirty, so I had to throw it away and cry >:O - cause there was no other thing to eat in the house.
Quoting Sapientia
Clean it man, wth? Stop being lazy. You want to be eaten up by ants? >:O
Btw, could you please delete my last two posts in the school of thought thread?
I'll clean it tomorrow. Unless I can't be bothered and think to myself "I'll clean it tomorrow".
And you're welcome.
Some might wish they were in your shoes, where 50K wouldn't even pay for the additional work of lifting a finger, but I'm happy to flip the bird for free.
That's why there's a timer button on ovens so you get beeped.
The biscuits had never been lighter.
The sort of "dirt" that one needs to worry about exists abundantly within the category of "relatively clean" or even "very clean". The 5 second rule doesn't work (if you retrieve it from the floor in 5 seconds, it's OK to eat). Any pathogens on the floor transfer on contact--they don't need time to crawl on board your slice of bread, pizza, grape, pork chop, whatever.
That said, you probably won't get sick and die from eating food off a floor that is beneath "relatively clean". Bacteria, pollen, poison dusts (like lead dust) and so forth drizzle onto our bodies all the time. We inhale and swallow this stuff continuously. Of course, every now and then we get sick and die, too.
Big brother is still watching you.
That was a short-lived joke. I presume the person responsible will tell you themselves.
>:O >:O, yeah I wasn't about to doubt that ;)
>:)
Let me guess. It must be the weed-smoking Sapientia ;)
I'll plead the fifth on his behalf...
Like this guy...
She's the boss (Y)
You have lived a blessed life Hanover to not have ever encountered the "blood is thicker than water" phrase. I have known it for decades as it often explains why a Step Parent will side with a blood child before they side with their current spouse, regardless of who is right.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds
I took the plugs to a buddy to get them changed on the cheap cheap, but it ended up costing more, by letting anyone else do anything. Firstly I let my Dad go and get the spark plugs, and explained what ones they'd try to sell him, and not to get those, but different ones. He got the ones I didn't want, and that was in the fall. I figured they'd still fit, but nope... totally wrong ones. I didn't have receipt either by the time I found that out.
These trucks are annoying to change the plugs on, they oxidize, and can only withstand 25 lbs of torque without breaking. So, figured I'd get someone with experience, but he broke them, so had to buy the kit I didn't want to, and then he broke one of the new ones putting it in... so I got another one... it would have ended up being cheaper if I had have just taken it to a garage to begin with. Although the cheapest option would have been for me to have just done it all myself...
Going to do that today, and then start moving my stuff... hopefully I don't fuck it up too... lol
They particularly are so ridiculously full of deception, and use their "white coat" (sometimes gray, but still equally ominous, I assure you) positions of authority to be believed without evidence or experience, and then expect their deceptions to have no lasting effects whatsoever.
EDIT: oh wait, you removed the devil icon...
Well since you had put that devilish icon first, I thought you were up to something unclean again...
You're saying this kind of research amounts to entrapment?
I'm saying that if you look at the methodology for a lot of these studies... their conclusions don't seem all that informed, or impressive...
I'm sure that the motivations are pure. A lot of these things can be reduced to a personal lack of responsibility, or, simply having a conclusion in mind from the get go, and attempting to confirm it.
I know, harsh, but truth.
Also a certain type of person shows up for those, not just anyone and everyone from every walk of life. You know that researchers have literally hid under their beds in order to catch them in their natural environment as well? For science!
Part of the problem is that it's not like you can just plant some moonflower seeds and expect a crop. They don't even sell seeds for that kind of moonflower. You could try to transplant one, but that frequently is just a laborious way to kill a plant. That's generally true of natives. They're fragile.. maybe because that's part of the balance that was set up by the evolution of this biosphere.
Immigrants are usually natives that have moved.
Frankly, I have heard enough of truths. In fact, I have heard soo many truths that I am about to lose my mind however I fear that has already happened. I cannot look at a historical car without my mind starting to part out the car and guesstimate costs/profits.
Cool side effect of my new job right?
Not at the expense of all the other important shit that used to fill my brain that is currently falling out as I learn about yet ANOTHER Bezel on a Corvette.
Another one. I don't use my brain, trying to keep it in mint condition.
Yes. A lot of the immigrants here are Chinese. North America and China were once connected so there are a lot of plant types that the two regions have in common. The Chinese versions usually edge out the native ones. It doesn't make much difference usually.. except in the cases where the native species feed wildlife and the naturalized immigrants don't.
Absolutely unlikely to die from such stuff. Kids put their fingers in dog shit, and all the dirty parts of parks, and as far as I see, they're still surviving. However, obviously it wouldn't be a good idea to eat that if the place was very dirty. But if it's relatively clean, no problem, just chug it down your throat mate!
True. When I was a kid we played in the dirt a lot, and swam in a creek shared by cattle. Children with allergies and asthma were kind of unusual.
One of the theories about the increase in prevalence of allergies and asthma is that children are being raised without enough exposure to dirt. It is the seemingly paradoxical result of overly-clean environments for children. Children's immune systems don't get sufficiently challenged by normal 'dirt allergens' so that as they grow up they are sensitive to too many ordinary substances.
Of course, there is a limit to the beneficial effects of dirt, but infants who grow up with a dog in the house and are allowed to play in actual dirt have healthier immune systems and fewer allergies.
Yes, I agree with much of this, and I've noticed similar things myself. Having grown up part of the time at the countryside I can say this is very much true in my experience.
Yup.
I have seen studies showing that ulcerative colitis (an immune system disease affecting the large intestine) was initially more prevalent in the northern US than the southern, although both are about the same now. It was believed that the cause was the cleanliness of the north versus the dirtiness of the south at the time, and one current form of treatment that is being considered for the disease is probiotics, which is the introduction of additional bacteria into the system, although that is still in the experimental stage.
Some problems with any theory that posits that lack of pathogens are the cause of a weakened immune system might be (1) decreased pathogens occur in more industrialized regions, which also would be better at documenting the incidence of disease, (2) the industrialized region might be healthier for those with normal immune systems but worse for those with hyperactive immune systems, and (3) those who limit their access to pathogen friendly environments might be being responsive to an already apparent condition.
With regard to #1, it might be simply that the incidence of illness in both clean and dirty environments is the same, but it's poorly documented in dirty regions and the dirty people are simply going undiagnosed.
With regard to #2, you can't discount the suppressive (and ironically, normalizing) effects of a pathogen infused environment on a hyperactive immune system. There is a lower incidence of ulcerative colitis (for example) among smokers than non-smokers, suggesting that the poisons of cigarettes are normalizing the hyperactive immune system.
With regard to #3, it might simply be that you've noticed that the asthmatics are shut in their homes because they have had adverse responses to the running in daisy fields as opposed to the suggestion that their asthma is being caused by their refusal to go outside and smell the daisies.
Don't get me wrong, I'm fully supportive of any theory that advocates playing with dog shit, but I'm just offering up some other considerations.
Okay, but those represent bacteria which have a positive role inside the gut in breaking down food. Probably most bacteria you encounter in dirt don't have this role :P . Most of the bacteria contained in probiotics are also found in dairy products. In fact dairy products are our most common source of probiotics. One yoghurt a day keeps the doctor away ;)
Also I would doubt that probiotics contribute to the strength of the immune system. Rather they are good for your gut's health.
(a) Rationality is an ill-defined quality. I sat with an Economics student in a philosophy class earlier in the year, and she and I could find little correlation between philosophical rationality and economic rationality. The arguments are often about ends, and ends are usually about premisses.
(b) I feel sympathy for Wosret's view. Interestingly, improved ethics makes it harder to test whether the knowledge that 'the subject' is being experimented on has an effect on outcomes, as it's unethical not to tell people they're being experimented on.
It hurts so good.
No body knows for sure what exactly is in probiotic pills -- they are not regulated. There are beneficial bacteria in yoghurt. Yes, they are good for the gut. But, there are perhaps 10,000 different bacteria in the gut, and some of these bacteria seem to be useful in constructing / maintaining the immune system. However, research on this has just begun.
You'll like this.
Patients suffering from C. difficile bacteria (a variety that comes to the fore after the gut bacteria have been wiped out by very strong antibiotics.) It causes severe ulcerative colitis, and patients can die from it. It doesn't respond to antibiotics -- it's just too resistant. However, a cure has been found:
C. difficile is kept in check by the actions of the normal gut flora which the patient no longer has. What to do, what to do?
On a hunch, and a little research, it was discovered that an injection of fecal matter (aka shit) into the gut by enema brought some C difficile infections under control in 48 hours, and eliminated it in a few more days. A company has been set up (naturally; nobody every went broke underestimating...) to collect fecal donations, process them (mix with water and run the crap through a sieve to remove the suspended solids) and put them in an attractive bottle, which recipients will not be horrified to look at.
The FDA has not approved the therapy, but hasn't forbidden the procedure, either.
It's also been found that when the fecal matter of fat rats is fed to rats who were bred to be thin, they get fat--despite their lineage. The opposite has also been found. Chronically fat rats fed the fecal matter of thin rats lost weight quite quickly (other factors being the same).
I am taking your three-point theory under advisement.
What's more, economics assumes that people are rational only when they act as egotists. I should be more specific and say that this applies to game theoretical reasoning.
Why is this so disturbing on so many levels?
It's just one more blow to free will. It seems to be the case that even bacteria can make us dance to their tune.
Alright, personal question. As a gay gentleman, I'd suspect you've found yourself dangerously close to fecal ingestion even if consisting only of minute remnants from a less than tidy partner. If my suspicions are correct, can you verify whether your weight began to correspond with your partner's soon after the escapade.
I might have suspected you would suspect. You, suspect, may continue to suspect away.
I think this is the first time you've said something that actually makes me feel sick.
I'm surprised it's taken this long.
:-O
I don't know man, you make me feel like there is no hope left for humanity.
Why does this feel like a double standard when 'Two Girls and a Cup' was viewed as such a funny concept at the old place?
I see. So, if I consume the fecal matter of thin rats, then I will become thinner. Or a thin rat. It's worth the gamble. Where can I get ahold of this stuff?
Well, I'm guessing, but extrapolating. I was doing a bit of reading on placebos earlier in the year and ethics have shifted so that in theory you've got to know you might be getting a placebo in a test. I doubt doctors are actually following this rule but the ground has certainly shifted. I was especially struck by some research among doctors, who confidentially reported high use of secret placebos to arrive at a 'psychogenic' diagnosis, e.g. an amazingly high number of people's 'movement disorders' in the USA (15 to 25% of those attending clinics) are supposedly psychogenic, and much of this supposed level arises from dishing out placebos instead of real pain-killers or anti-inflammatories or whatever. (Of course this also says something about a weird level of suspicion by doctors of their own patients)
Completely agree, that was the economist-woman's point to me, but of course it made me too reflect on what hidden premisses might lie behind 'philosophical' or 'psychological' or any other version of 'rationality'. There are some hidden assumptions for instance behind a criticism of confirmation bias as 'irrational'. It often makes sense emotionally to accommodate oneself to how things have turned out, but in many of these psychological accounts the 'emotional' somehow has to be redescribed as 'cognitive' before it can become an acceptable explanation.
Why would the name be "revolting" if you have never heard of it?
Opps, sorry.
Request for permission to THWAP Agustino.
Respectfully yours,
MiffedTiff
You're missing out.
We should probably just integrate that into the guidelines. ;)
Thwacking on the hand...
There's a pretty significant drive to cut the American population down on both narcotics and anti-biotics. I'm wondering if it's in the light of that that doctors could get away with sneaking placebos?
'Sup, dog? :D
The usual. lol. Work. Lots of boring work. :P How about yourself?
Just checking out the never boring Philosophy Forum. And the strange thing is... anyone reading this sentence... is doing the same thing right now. Freaky! Giving me goosebumps. :-O
>:O Hilarious!
Approval of GOP's Trumpcare should reduce number of poor people substantially, if they can't afford insurance they simply will not survive.
Haha, I'm also doing boring work, surprise surprise! :P All work ends up boring in the end, because all work involves some kind of repetition. It's in the nature of the beast... Even something creative like designing - still have to pick a color scheme every time, still have to select fonts and look over and over again at the same popular fonts, etc. So even if the work involves creative elements, it will always also involve repetitive elements...
Do owls have a penchant for irony? :P
Yeah, pretty much the same thing day in and day out. haha
They may well be. Who am I to say? I am merely the goddess of wisdom.
Phone must have internets though.
No, it's a slightly different thing. I call Internet.
Yes
I argue people who say life sucks and then you die. My reasoning for my position is crumbling out from under me at moments like these.
Fundamentalism, racism, fear and propaganda: An insider explains why rural, Christian white America will never change
[i]Forsetti's Justice, AlterNet, Jun 2017
Raw Story[/i]
I'm guessing some will nod in (silent) agreement, and others will respond with "righteous anger" against, yet others...
So it goes.
But what do you think?
The results are in and it's not my Dad's Heart this time. So with 97+% oxygen rate and clear lungs, they are sending to him Primary to see about blood tests to check for Anemia. Anemia? Are you kidding me? The man cannot breathe...people turn and look when he is breathing....he sounds so short of breath...it makes no sense. :s
Mongrel can you make any sense of this?
They didn't have insurance historically. When they're sick, they go to the hospital. Hospitals eat the cost. It would be cheaper if they'd go to a regular doctor, get healthy diet, etc.
That is exactly where I would expect him to be but no, he is at home. Mom reminded me that he has Stage 3 Kidney Failure which begs the question why the hell isn't he in the hospital now?
How does this all end? I mean I know what the end looks like but how does it get from Stage 3 to 4? Does a patient suffer?
But if your Mom is a nurse, I'd think she'd be able to pick up on whether he needs to go to the hospital or not. He's oxygenating well, so that's a good sign. When is his appointment to see his doctor?
If Lasix doesn't work what do they do?
Along with this older article (among a few others), there seems to be a trend of sorts:
Peter’s Choice
[i]Rick Perlstein, Feb 2017
Mother Jones[/i]
A kind of indignant ignorance?
Edit: I got it, it's from Hamlet: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy".
Yes, one of my favourite quotes by far!
Mongrel, Thank you from the bottom of my heart for all the questions of mine you have fielded over the year (maybe years) as I realize you never volunteered for the job. Lucky you huh? (Y) I have a tendency to gravitate towards people who will be as truthful with me, as best they can. There is an understandable risk in talking to people in a definitive way when it comes to the health of a loved one and there is no greater security to me, than to have someone in the medical community speak to me with the frankness in which I ask the question. I am sure you have come across my kind of question when I have dire concerns and need a Doctor or Nurse to answer me in the vein of "What would you do if it was your loved one?" "Would you do the same thing if I was your Granddaughter?"
Again, Thank you~
You mean Stage 3 Kidney Disease? I've never heard of it called as stage 3 kidney failure in my part of the world, and I'm quite literate for a non-doctor.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Well Stage 3 isn't yet Stage 5.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
The filtering mechanism of kidneys degrades more, that's how it advances. Then your body is no longer capable to eliminate toxins. It naturally degrades anyway, but generally diets high in sodium (salt), protein, and calcium (milk/dairy) speed this up. So do kidney diseases, kidney stones, diabetes and high blood pressure (a very big one).
I myself had quite a lower level of GFR and creatinine on the high side (for my age anyway) last time they were checked, but I have no other symptoms (proteinuria, etc.) that would be sufficient to diagnose me with CKD or indicate that I'm at risk of it. No kidney stones either.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Well, when people say that, they usually mean that they have a feeling of not getting enough air, or wheezing, etc. There's a lot of things that can cause such feelings including heart issues, arrhythmia, anxiety, lung diseases/conditions, anemia, carbon monoxide poisoning, etc. Have they measured his blood oxygenation levels? If his blood is oxygenated, then likely his lungs are working fine, and the problem is somewhere else. You can measure it yourself if you buy a pulse oxymeter from the pharmacy :P . Readings above 95% are considered normal. But even if his blood oxygenation is normal, that doesn't mean that there are no issues. In case of anemia and carbon monoxide poisoning for example you'd also encounter high readings of oxygenation levels, but still experience such symptoms.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Hmm I just saw this now, didn't move on the previous page until now. Yes, anemia can definitely cause such symptoms. If there's not enough hemoglobin cells to carry oxygen around your body, then even if your heart is pumping right, and your lungs are oxygenating right, then there will not be enough oxygen going around, and you will start feeling short of breath.
Think of it like this. Your hemoglobin cells are like railcars. Your heart is the engine of those railcars. And your lungs are the factory where the railcars get their goodies from. The railcars need to transport a certain level of goodies in order to supply for everyone who needs them (that is the rest of your body). So maybe there's not enough railcars (anemia - low hemoglobin). Maybe the right goods are replaced with poisonous goods (such as carbon monoxide poisoning). Maybe the engine of the railcars isn't working well - so they don't get around the body (that's the heart). Maybe the factory doesn't produce enough oxygen (that would be the lungs). Or maybe the control centre (the brain) fires off the wrong signal (can happen with a variety of conditions, including very often psychological ones, such as anxiety disorders). These are some of the possibilities that can account for shortness of breath. Oh - useful thing to remember is that blood oxygenation is measured as a percentage of railcars (hemoglobin) that are full, and are passing by wherever you have the pulse oxymeter placed (typically the finger). It doesn't matter what they're full with, whether it's oxygen or carbon monoxide. But that's what it would indicate. Say 97% of hemoglobin are carrying something. So you can imagine the conditions where you'd have a high level of SpO2 and yet still have a problem using the metaphor above. Anemia for example would be one of them.
Theyre all holding their abs tightly in, and you can see how his chest is sunken in, with just the visible big chest tendon, and deep armpits. If you can see a tendon, then thats a weak spot. See your supposed to hold the ribs in, bush the top abs out and hold the bottom ones in, chest up. Because theyre pulling them in rathet than pushing them forward, it makes them reach out at the extremity of their reach. People with guts hit harder because their weight is lower and going forward rather than higher, and being pulled back. It makes them commit more, and unable to stop quickly (if you want to increase your speed then train stopping power). My dad is 300 lbs 6'3 and i hit harder than he does. When buddy rotates his elbow out like that and takes his largest muscle group out of it, and fails to channel the return force into the center line, he has no follow through.
Because of our fishy ancestey the nads develop under the stomach and then decent, leaving a cavity in the left core about the size of your forearm. Buddies explains this in the book your inner fish. I imagine that this is why males require more intentional effort to maintain balance. Prolly something like that.
You know that if you hit someone just above the heart, in just the right place, at just the right time and usually while theyre below the age of like 25, it will stop the heart. Happens all the time in sports. Baseball the most.
Thank you so much for your explanation Agustino, I do appreciate you taking the time to explain to me the possibilities and some of the pitfalls but the quote above I am just not understanding. Why would Carbon monoxide be present in the cells? I understand it from experiencing a house fire but not in regards to the blood.
I feel very naïve in all this but once I 'get it' I am solid in understanding "it", whatever "it" is. Though I would not deny a fog in my understanding when it comes to my loved ones. For someone who leads with their heart, logic is a tool that is not at the ready to deal with issues like this.
Wos, your not talking about Cookie Monster are you? >:o
Hes veggie monster now isnt he?
Whatcha talking about Wos? He is a healthier Monster which I am sure you appreciate his efforts and Cookies are a once in a while treat! You have to understand my fancy for the blue furry dude (L) Let Cookie Monster live!!
What would you wish for?
Wonderful pic :)
Aren't we supposed to keep our wishes secret?
And ta very muchly. I themed it a bit vintage to suit the hippy environment.
Please don't ever be sorry for trying to help and I hope he gets to feeling better too. (L)
A chance to visit the tree to make a wish maybe.
Mine is prolly like 5005... you get that reference heister eggcart?
Haha, did I ever have Schop there? :P Yes, I took Witty off because I've been less impressed by his (and Hamann's) view of language as time went by - and the indirect realism or antirealism that (can) emerge from it.
Quoting Thorongil
Well, I thought who I can put, and I was a bit puzzled. Who do I really agree with from the whole history of philosophy? And there weren't many names that came up. Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Augustine (you could also add Kierkegaard and Pascal amongst those whom I've considered). And from those I guess I agree most with Aquinas (and Aristotle).
Definitely not Kant - I've started to think quite negatively about Kant, a lot of postmodernism traces its roots back to Kant.
Quoting Thorongil
Why so? :P It's not like the Orthodox reject Aquinas - he's been standard teaching for many Orthodox through the centuries. (although it is true we don't consider him a Saint). The only point is that Orthodoxy goes beyond the rationalism of Aquinas and the Catholic Church and has a richer apophatic tradition. That's why Aquinas isn't given such centre stage position in Orthodoxy, because he's too scholastic, too kataphatic. But as a Christian philosopher? - I don't think you can get better than Aquinas.
You are always welcome. In the event that you can't, I can place a wish on there for you. ;)
Whatever you wish for will only come true by injuring another, like if you wish to live forever, a certain number of babies will instantly die in their mothers' arms to give you their life years. That's how it always works. Always.
I am in support of it (largely), but I don't think it's a very effective ad. What makes it unconvincing is that it's too categorical, and appeals too much to strength rather than compassion.
I am against the media, Hollywood, and the Academia - and the progressive-leftist movements, but they cannot be stopped except by taking back precisely the institutions that they control. The media, Hollywood and the Academia determine the education of the nation, and hence its values. Whoever controls those institutions has the future in their hands.
(link)
Think you had a quote from him.
Quoting Agustino
I've seen this claim before. Do you know what sources you got this from or did you just reason to this conclusion yourself? I think Kant would be appalled by postmodernism, though I suppose that doesn't mean he couldn't have indirectly and unintentionally paved the way for it in some way.
There's a certain narrative that tries to pin the blame for the modern Western world's woes on Descartes's alleged "subjective turn" or idealism or the Enlightenment that I find tiresome. Augustine had much the same and just as many doubts as Descartes. Neo-Platonic thinkers like Pseudo-Dionysius, the Cappadocian Fathers, John the Scot, Meister Eckhart, and other medieval figures can be described as idealists. Even figures like Aquinas who are normally taken to be realists are certainly nothing like the naive or direct realists of today. As for the Enlightenment, there were two strains of it, one moderate, and one radical, so it's silly to bash "the Enlightenment" as if it were a univocal term.
Quoting Agustino
I don't think this is true. This whole "Catholicism is Aristotelian, legalistic, and kataphatic," while "Orthodoxy is Platonic, mystical, and apophatic" dichotomy just isn't born out by the evidence, it seems to me. I read the following comments by a Catholic engaged in a debate with an Orthodox recently:
Quoting Agustino
You're right, but there are significant strains of Orthodoxy that really don't like him. Such dislike is often born out of ignorance, but it exists.
If you like Aquinas, have you ever read his Contra errores Graecorum? I've read some of it and it's one of the reasons why I'm more inclined toward Catholicism than Orthodoxy.
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm
Well, I wasn't really asking you, but anyway >:O .
I do not think the ad was really meant to prove all leftists wrong (one can't prove anyone wrong in 1 minute), but I think it generally summarizes up what the movement was about. Perhaps grabbing the attention of those who watch it, and prompting them to research it into more depth.
Everyone deserves a say in the media, even though I disagree with most popular media. Their seems to be a developing lack of trust in it anyway, so one way or another, the common news media probably is not going start a revolution. I think the real power is in the hand of who raises the kids.
So, like saying I wish this conversation would continue?
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
No. X-)
Check out the paradox.... I didn't see. :-O
How do you Thank someone for something like that?
I did? :-O When I deleted my old profile, all that was there was Wittgenstein, Hamann, and Democritus :P
Quoting Thorongil
I have read some people saying it before as well, but I wasn't entirely convinced. The deeper problem is that Kantianism doesn't give off anything useful at all. That's the conclusion I've arrived at recently, and that's also why I take a grimmer look on it. Quite the contrary, Kant destroyed the possibility of reasoning to the ultimate questions, leaving them a matter of faith, thereby destroying, rather than saving religion. In addition he helped in making truth a matter of subjectivity rather than objectivity - things out there conforming to us rather than we conforming to them.
Quoting Thorongil
I agree, but so what? Descartes would probably be appalled at philosophical movements that happened after him, but that doesn't mean much either.
Quoting Thorongil
But Augustine doesn't make the claim that everything can be doubted, or we should make doubting into a philosophical method. I can't go into detail here, but I had a thread at old PF which cannot be accessed anymore, where I outlined the serious mistakes of Descartes:
http://forums.philosophyforums.com/threads/the-fourfold-mistake-of-descartes-71026.html
Quoting Thorongil
Yes and no. They were certainly no Bishop Berkeley or Schopenhauer. The Platonists have a wholly different kind of idealism than the "modern" idealisms.
Quoting Thorongil
There is a point to it. Name me someone like Duns Scotus, Aquinas or even Augustine from the Eastern Orthodox Tradition. Maybe Origen, but otherwise not many come close. The Eastern Orthodox Tradition puts a LOT less emphasis on reason, hence the absence of many philosophers in the Eastern tradition. There's a lot of saints, mystics, etc. but not many philosophers at all...
Quoting Thorongil
That is true. Even those who know him end up not liking him, because Aquinas doesn't go far enough for them. But then in my opinion that's asking too much of a philosopher. A philosopher isn't also a mystic.
Quoting Thorongil
No, I've only read through parts of Summa Theologicae, Summa Contra Gentiles and De Veritate. Thanks for the reference, I will look into it! :)
My trails and tribulations... dealing with incompetent people is one thing, but dealing with incompetence out of super human passive aggresion is a whole other thing.
This ad does nothing but foment resentment on both sides of the political spectrum.
It probably makes folks on the far left want to buy a gun, while it makes those on the far right want to add to their arms stockpile.
So all in all the NRA made an effective ad, as the bottom line is to sell more guns.
Once we have enough guns we can all shoot each other and only the strong (lucky) will survive.
The important thing is to resent each other more and more along the lines of our primitive tribal affiliations.
I could swear you did. The contents are cloudy, but I can picture it in my mind.
Quoting Agustino
I care less about its utility than I do its truth. I would only have cause to label it deeply problematic if I thought it were false, but I'm still not convinced that it is, at least not wholly.
Quoting Agustino
Maybe he did, but then it's useless to complain. You'd have to show why and how he was wrong to think he destroyed reasoning to the kinds of ultimate questions you presumably find to be legitimate.
Quoting Agustino
Sure, but you've still granted that they're all idealists, which was my point. And it seems to me that modern idealisms can be considered as different from each other as modern idealism in general is to Platonic idealism. I take phenomenalism to be a kind of idealism, which is almost nothing like absolute idealism, for example, save the fact that they're both idealisms.
Quoting Agustino
Maximus and John Damascene?
Quoting Agustino
You're confusing "emphasis on reason" with "number of philosophers." One church can emphasize reason just as much as another and yet not produce as many philosophers. I can agree that the Western Church may have produced more philosophers than the Eastern Church, but there are historical reasons for this that have little to do with each church's "temperament" or what have you. For example, Eastern Christianity has arguably had a much more precarious existence over the centuries than the Western Church. The iconoclasm controversy, the rise of Islam, the Fourth Crusade, the Ottomans, and communists have all threatened to destroy it. The production of philosophers generally requires leisure and societal stability, which the East hasn't had very much of.
Also, be careful not to confuse the form and the content of a piece of writing. The Western scholastics wrote a certain way due to the academic context they inhabited, but the content of their work and its influences are very similar to what we find in the East at the same time.
However, even if it were true that the Western Church emphasized reason a lot more than the Eastern Church (whatever that means precisely), the former could not be said to be any less Platonic, mystical, apophatic, etc than the latter.
Thanks for posting that ad for inspection. At best, I agree it is extremely manipulative and fear-based. But advertisers know that the only thing that sells more than sex or desire is fear. About your observation about primative tribal affiliations... I would agree somewhat. Our identities of gender, race, religion, "social class", etc. will have a marked influence especially in turbulent times, as people perhaps seek some kind of grounding. But i wonder how strong and unifying these factors actually are. Especially when individualism seems to be the cultural core belief, unspoken or not. For example... say a group gathered that had a very strong homogeneity, such as white Protestent upper-middle class women with politically liberal inclinations, for instance. They would have much in common with each other, but whether they happened to like each other, get along, or accomplish anything is totally up to the particular individuals involved.
Basically, the problem i see with an extreme "us vs them" approach is that the "us" part is infinitely divisible until what is left is more like "me against everyone else". The world is crazy except for you and me, and I'm beginning to wonder about you, as the old joke goes.
If you don't already know him, you may be interested in Franz Rosenzweig, a Jewish philosopher of the early 20th century. He has a Stanford page. He thought that Kant had - contra the German Idealists who had followed Kant - cleared the ground for the 'new thinking' that Rosenzweig became a leader of. I'm interested in it because it's focused on 'speech', and how speech is particular yet brings us together, and is unique to humanity. But you may be more interested in his threefold view of God, world and self (this is in 'Star of redemption') as the three elements in his system of philosophy, who in their relations with each other advance towards unity through creation, revelation and redemption - a different kind of unity from the Absolute that Rosenzweig thought the German Idealists had mistakenly posited, because such a unity diminishes us in its categorising and socio-universalising.
Truth and utility are somewhat related. I believe that Plato/Aristotle expressed the same insights, only better and more clearly, than Kant did while avoiding all his mistakes. That's in terms of metaphysics/epistemology cause in terms of ethics Kant is quite terrible in my opinion.
Quoting Thorongil
Why do you think he was right?
Quoting Thorongil
Idealism doesn't have a very unambiguous meaning in the history of philosophy. I think Plato and Aristotle are realists, not idealists for that matter. I think the later dichotomy realism/idealism is useless and incoherent - Wittgenstein was right about that.
And even if they were idealists, so what? I've never claimed that the problem with modern philosophy is idealism.
Quoting Thorongil
I wouldn't say Maximus the Confessor and John of Damascus even come close to the breadth and depth of Aquinas, Augustine and Scotus.
Quoting Thorongil
True enough, but I doubt this is the only reason. St. Augustine appeared in quite a difficult and violent period for example.
Quoting Thorongil
I disagree with you here, but wait for me to get back to this tomorrow and I'll write more. But basically both churches are Neoplatonic, but the difference in emphasis and theology has led one of them to be a lot more mystical and apophatic than the other.
Maps of Meaning: The Architecture of Belief (PDF)
Thank you I will look into him, however I must say I've become quite disillusioned with a lot of religious philosophy. There's several problems with it. First problem is that it lacks capacity to move people. Even someone like Thomas Aquinas - his writings are useful to DEFEND the faith, but that's nowhere near enough. That's why religion is losing because it's all defence and no attack. It's useless to have a palace that no one can attack when everyone is ignoring you. Religion needs a Nietzsche - with a philosophy capable of moving people.
Second problem is that it's very dry and not easy to communicate. This is multiplied by the fact that us believers often have a tendency to speak to unbelievers in terms of God wants this and God wants that. That's terrible - basically creates a rift of communication between the two parties.
Third problem is that many times religious philosophies descend into mysticism - which isn't bad in itself - however the issue with this is that mysticism isn't available to most people. So it cannot really be used to communicate effectively. Think Wayfarer for example - very focused on the mystical side which cannot affect many people anyway, and very little focused on the moral side which plays a much more practical and significant role in the everyday lives of most people.
Good, bad, ok, good, terrible, terrible, DISASTER, ok, meh, ok, terrible, terrible, good, bad.
He's back! Or at least he was a day ago. And he's still doing that "thought/belief" thing.
That explains a lot.
Quoting Thorongil
(Y)
>:O
I had the same reaction when I reached the end.
About what? I still subscribe to transcendental idealism, if that's what you meant by "Kantianism." As for why I think it's right, that would require a fairly long and complicated answer I'm not really interested in giving at the moment. Suffice it to say that I accept as important and basic a distinction between appearance and reality and find that Kant's way of couching this distinction makes the most sense while matching my experience of the world. I also don't think it rules out the validity and coherency of certain religious questions, even if Kant himself thought it did. This is because Schopenhauer's system, which completes Kant's philosophy in my opinion, ends in mysticism and impels one toward religion and the asking of such questions. Another reason is that Kant and Schopenhauer were on the whole fairly ignorant of late classical and medieval Christian philosophy and theology, so they never actually refuted classical theism so much as other forms of theism they mistakenly believed applied to such aforementioned time periods.
Quoting Agustino
I could grant this. It's an infuriating word at times.
Quoting Agustino
Good. But you do claim to be a realist of some kind, though, right?
Quoting Agustino
I shall await your post on this, because this, to me, is simply false.
Edit: the site is not responding much -- maybe it's overwhelmed. Here's the story in the New York Times it came from:
Hey Sapientia!
I play around from time to time. That thought/belief thing is a pillar of my position. ;)
I missed Hume. He's ok.
Which one are you? I'm INTJ :P
Only okay?! If I had to narrow it down even further, he'd be in the top three, as would Marx, who you think is terrible, if I've understood you correctly.
I'm curious why you think Francis Bacon is terrible - again, if I've understood you correctly. Russell, who you also seem to think is terrible for some reason, wrote that he has permanent importance as the founder of the modern inductive method and the pioneer in the attempt at logical systemisation of scientific procedure.
Plato and Aristotle made this distinction way before Kant ever opened his eyes - and they made it much better than Kant did. Transcendental idealism relies on subjectivity to make the distinction - on our forms of cognition, which is (in my opinion) crap, compared to Aristotle or Plato, both of whom made the distinction between appearance and reality much more clearly and sensibly by appealing to the immediacy of our senses in contradistinction to the reach (through time) of our reason.
Quoting Thorongil
Schopenhauer's system is nice. But the problem with it is that it's unnecessary. Why do we even need it? Philosophy ends in philosophical enquiry, not in a system, which is why everything returns back to Plato. As far as I'm concerned lately, a lot of later philosophy isn't of much use. I've been re-reading for example Plato's Republic recently, and you can find Nietzsche there, you can find Hume, etc.
Quoting Thorongil
Yes. But what does this mean? I'm a realist the same way Plato/Aristotle are realists. I simply don't think there's another coherent position. Other positions are language games which can be deflated via Wittgensteinian analysis.
Quoting Thorongil
Do you know about the whole tradition of Hesychasm for example? Do you know that Catholics have a negative view of theosis - the goal of mystical practice? That's why Eckhart was deemed a heretic for example. Yes there are mystical movements within the Catholic church - even Aquinas towards the end of his life - but these are much less open or emphasised. Certainly theosis plays no significant role and isn't very developed in Catholicism (and this includes their practice of mysticism). I think you'd benefit sometime during your life from a trip to Mount Athos in Greece, to see and speak with Eastern Orthodox monks. You'll see that the approach is very different. Closer to Buddhism and other Eastern forms of spirituality actually.
Yeahhh, what's so great about him? :s He misunderstood causality, he correctly understood that sentiment plays an important role in morality, and was keenly aware of the limitations of reason. Oh, he also critiqued some bad arguments for religion, and realised that we don't have logical certainty with regards to empirical matters (so what? - everyone already knew this). What's big in that? Is it going to make your life better or what? Hume is relatively unimportant and minuscule in the scheme of things. But he's not bad or terrible. Just not great. There's not much you can get out of him.
Quoting Sapientia
Marx correctly diagnosed capitalism, however he also misinterpreted the diagnosis. For example, he complained that the bourgeois keep and treat their women as property by pretending they hold to certain moral values, while, behind the curtains actually engaging in the promiscuity that they condemn (this is indeed a problem by the way). BUT - lo and behold, Marx tells us that it's not the promiscuity that is the problem, it is that they're not doing it openly! IF ONLY we had a community of women that all men openly enjoyed, ahhh how much better that would be instead of hiding behind curtains, etc. etc.
Quoting Sapientia
What's good about him?
Quoting Sapientia
So what? What's the import of those achievements? It's like me telling you that I worked very hard to dig a ditch which is 10,000km long :s
Is science being done faster and better because he systematised the scientific procedure :s ? Or what's the deal?
Why?
Quoting Sapientia
Right, so did Aristotle for example. Except that Aristotle was an actual genius who pretty much produced all our known science for over 1000 years including biology, physics, logic, etc.
Quoting Sapientia
That would depend how you define the two fields, but I don't see someone being great because he believed that.
Quoting Sapientia
The Aristotelians never actually held to induction by simple enumeration btw. Aristotle attributed different degrees of certainty to different sciences, each according to its nature. Induction was never supposed to yield absolutist arguments. So this isn't actually a merit, but quite the contrary, he didn't even understand what Aristotle was saying.
Quoting Sapientia
Again, this is completely absurd and not a merit. Teleological explanation is an irreducible part of nature, and it is absolutely required to explain how parts work together to form a coherent whole. Bacon as was common for his time had quite a mechanistic, and WRONG, view of reality.
I edited my reply to specify that it wasn't so much the criticism, but the example you gave. The great wealth of his significance is not about what he thought about women or promiscuity. That's a typical Agustino angle to take on such a great thinker.
Quoting Agustino
Yes, his innovations in science and logic make him one of the greats, and form a positive contrast to Plato, but he also got a lot of stuff wrong, and what he got wrong pervaded the thinking of so many that came after him.
Quoting Agustino
>:O
That's not what I said though. I said he correctly diagnosed capitalism, but misinterpreted the diagnosis, and hence the solution he offered is wrong. That's a criticism not just of his views on promiscuity but also on communism/socialism. The promiscuity thing is just an example which means to show that just as he misinterpreted that, so too he misinterpreted our economic troubles.
Quoting Sapientia
:s how is that a positive contrast to Plato?
Because science and logic are important, and Plato chose instead to make an allegory about a cave, and talk about abstractions.
Yes they are in their relevant fields of study. More specifically they're helpful in allowing us to manipulate physical reality to do what we want to get done, and also as a means of contemplating the beauty of nature/creation. But science ain't gonna tell you what you should want, what will make you happy, how you should behave, or how you can achieve ethical wisdom. Remember that in the Republic Plato is dealing with morality, and he's trying to say that morality is a good in and of itself, and to be truly moral, you need to experience the Platonic vision which reveals to you the truth that is hidden from those in the cave. This allows you to understand both why others are behaving immorally, and also what means (the shadows) you need to employ to educate them to behave morally when they do not see the truth directly.
Plato was by no means "talking about abstractions" simply because he wasn't doing science. He was talking about something far more important than science - how you should live your life.