Funny about the election, I'm out west, where the overwhelming majority are conservative, but I'm from back east, and regardless of that, am damn liberal -- so the other day at the grocery store, the check out lady asked me about my political allegiances, and I told her, and she did not like that at all. Claimed that I was the only liberal that she had seen come through that store, and started ranting about it, and moving super fast to get rid of me. I thought it was pretty amusing.
Reply to Yahadreas That's nothing, I've had to use a Kindle to access the site when away from my laptop at the moment cos I broke my smartphone. Not fun.
The drafts feature is pretty awesome, no? Another one I like: if you're in a discussion with multiple pages, double click on the right of the screen to go to the next page, on the left to go previous.
I have been watching the main page over at PF for the last few days, and I am surprised to see the number of invisible members online. Lots more than before. Are people trying to go unnoticed over there now?
Reply to Hanover This is on PF yes? No you can actually turn on a setting to make you appear as invisible (huh?) so that your name doesn't appear at the bottom of the page under "Currently viewing this thread". You just appear as "invisible member".
But here, everyone is invisible. I like that. It removes another distraction. However you can see who's online by going here: http://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/members/online
He's a PR guy, doing his job, attempting to secure financial assets. He isn't posting about topics that interest him, but rather the directions PF can go to make them more money, while attempting to calm everyone's shit.
Even so, if he would have showed up the day of or after the sale and explained his/their intentions, I'm not sure this site would exist. PF probably would have ended up with some form of ads based on what Paul and others have said recently.
This site is visually far prettier than the old PF and has some nice features.
I call it a "she" as a formality, because Modbot is a clone of Eliza, which is a female name.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 02, 2015 at 11:04#20380 likes
4.5 hours ago a HUGE something ROCKED our ranch and for the love of God could not figure out what. Turns out it was a 4.1 Earthquake, here in Arizona. Well folks our beach front property when California breaks off after the BIG one, just got a little bit closer!
;) Btw it's been a WHILE since something rocked my world on a Sunday night! ;)
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 02, 2015 at 11:06#20400 likes
Oh, oh and, AND my Rottweiler puppy started chewin up the area rug about 15 minutes before the first quake. Do you suppose he has some special powers in that he KNEW something was up before? Or was he just trying to teeth his rear molars on the rug? :D
When I went back to adult highschool, we were all talking about our pets for some class exercise, and this 30 year old woman with the fashion sense of a 60 year old said that her dog was military trained, and once took instructions over the phone after calling 911 to administer medication to her mother after she collapsed, selected from the medicine cabinet.
So I was all like, "oh yeah, well my dog can sense earth quakes and fly.".
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 02, 2015 at 22:28#20680 likes
Reply to Wosret And my font color purple! What haven't you done before me Wosret? :P
I hate earthquakes. They are sort of common around here though. A few years ago we had a big one, 7.5. Dropped my house from 2 meter posts to sitting on the floor most of the way around. Most of the area around where I live is filled swamps and it is only just above sea level so there was a lot of rolling around for what seemed like hours but was only about 45 seconds.
Lots of people around here said that there was an eerie quite, not even the dogs barked for a while before it happened. Don't know whether they can sense things like that or if it is just us attaching "possible" memories to the events.
Reply to Bitter Crank
But which caused what? As I said it might have been coincidence and then attached to the memory of the shaking.
And apart from that, why do you have horse carriages? :s
"My postillion has been struck by lightning" was, for some odd reason, a favored sentence in French phrase books for beginners, like late 1800s, early 1900s. Even at the time it was thought to be a ridiculous phrase to learn -- something on the nonsensical order of
La plume de ma tante
Est sur le bureau de mon oncle,
Le papier de mon oncle
Est sur le bureau de ma tante.
Have you heard this horrible song, long ago? Or the equally awful itsy bits tout petit petit bikini?
I don't watch TV shows, except on Netflix, but she is hot. She does not
have to say a thing, it wrecks the persona I have already imagined. ..so yea shut up!
Re-imagining.
Thinking about a Turducken re-imagined as a Terrine, a French styled meatloaf. It is easy enough to purchase ground chicken and turkey, and duck breast. The duck breast has a layer of fat over it, which, since its fat is very tasty, I would trim off and put over the top of the Terrine. All three meats are done about same temp...some garlic, onion, mushroom...yea it's that time of year!
Putting the chopped or ground duck in center, which hopefully will add moisture and flavor to the Turkey and the Chicken. Slices that look kinda of like a meaty Rothko Serving over a salad topped with a light creamy vinaigrette. Champagne, a dry sherry or a Prosecco.
I have not decided on kind of mushroom or whether I should just chop up the duck fine for more mouth feel or ground it up like the chicken and turkey. Maybe instead of the duck fat, bacon or just butter on top of the Terrine, otherwise the dish might be too greasy.
For the chicken, I would get "Smart Chicken" - a brand name. Smart chicken is air-cooled after being gutted, rather than being dropped into a vat of [s]brains[/s] dead chickens to cool off. They are cleaner, according to Consumer Reports. But the main thing is that its skin gets crispier and tastier in the oven than the slop-cooled bird skin.
If you carefully removed the skin of a smart chicken, you could use it as a wrap for the boned raw meat, and it would (if it were smart) get crispy. You could use turkey drum sticks and cut the meat off those. Cut nice large hunks of raw meat off the chicken carcass and then combine them with duck and combine with the chopped mushrooms, garlic, onion, and a little ground black pepper and salt. Wrap in the chicken skin. Use the chicken carcass and turkey bones for soup.
This is strictly fantasy. I have never cooked anything so complicated. Proceed at your own risk.
I don't like rare duck, so I would want to make sure it was quite done. No rare fowl period. Can this be managed in your recipe? One could add bacon and/or a little chopped up sausage. Ham? Wild rice?
Like sweet potatoes? Bake several yams or sweet potatoes (same thing). Remove skins. Beat to a somewhat smooth consistency, add some butter and salt slightly. Back at the ranch, cook 3 or 4 sliced tart apples with 2 cups of cranberries. Sweeten to taste. Put the mashed sweet potatoes in a baking dish. Spread the cranberry-apple mixture on top. Reheat.
I very rarely say this, but well done, Fox News. Credit where credit is due to Shep Smith for eviscerating this attempt to excuse a war crime and blame the victims.
I will look for 'Smart' Chicken. Temperature should not be a problem, chicken, turkey and duck are good from 165 to 175 degrees F. And since this will be cooked in a deep oval dish with a lid, getting the right internal temperature should not present a problem. Un- Molding the Terrine will be more of a trick, I want it to come out looking like the dish it was cooked in so it can be sliced like a loaf.
I have this big ass Kitchen-Aid with a grinding blade for meat so it is more a question of what cuts will work best, I think I will stay traditional, if there is such a thing as traditional Turducken. Breast meat tends to dry out, and I imagine it will take a while to cook because it will be fairly dense. I like cooking so it should be a challenge to get to just right not to dry, not too greasy. I have to review some of the traditional recipes to determine how people season them and may borrow some ideas.
It will be served cold...the gelatin in the meats should congeal enough to keep the slices together, make them aesthetically pleasing. :)
Reply to Michael Never seen it, I don't watch too much TV and we probably don't have that channel here. One of the problems with local cable is that they mostly have channels that are at least dubbed in Spanish.
Most of my favorite shows were on USA and they took it off.
Life sucks in paradise sometimes.
Reply to Michael
Yeah I know, I have every episode of ALF and "That 70' Show", plus a few other short runners. But I don't bother looking for things unless I know about them. Maybe I'll checkout a couple of shows.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 08, 2015 at 14:16#27420 likes
Reply to Baden
Oh my give me some Shep! Anytime, anywhere, EVER! He KNOCKS it outta the park!
~swooning~ (L)
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Lol :) This reminds me of Sheps now. He's knocked a few out of the park in his time. Be a nice addition to the site. Anyone in touch with him?
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 08, 2015 at 21:37#27611 likes
Reply to Baden I invited our real sheps and he is also pretty freakin fine himself! 8-)
I need to catch up with this month's reading group and the one that I started on the Prolegomena. But, first things first, I'm hungry. I'm going to Dorington's to get some grub.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 14, 2015 at 14:49#31970 likes
Lol I could not figure out how to delete a comment so I went with "."
By the way, I do believe I got the last word at PF on Hanover's "Last Word" thread!
Time to pay up Hanover! X-)
Oh come Tiff, do you really think that slippery lizard is going to pay. I'll bet he comes along and says something like " We ain't finished yet" and try to transfer the thread over here. :-}
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 15, 2015 at 14:08#33400 likes
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Wait and see.
After reading this he will probably decide to either ignore the whole thing or say that you can't win because the other site is still running and therefore the last post has not been reached.
I've been reading the Wall Street Journal during a short term $1.00 promotional period. I had always thought the WSJ was good for at least two or three really good articles per issue, and that seems to still be true. For instance there was an article on new Sunday School curricula which was quite interesting. They also have quite decent articles on the arts, letters, and so forth. And their regular news stories are good too.
The comment sections below the articles are, however, appallingly juvenile and/or appallingly troglodyte, and/or vicious and paleoconservative. Good newspaper, bad readers.
Has anyone else seen the most recent edition of Question Time? I'm watching it on the BBC iPlayer, and about 30 minutes in, there's a brief - yet brilliant and funny - moment involving a member of the audience and a member of the panel. Worth a watch.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 16, 2015 at 12:14#34180 likes
What is the USA supposed to do with this ISIS expansion? Sit back and allow the surrounding countries to do 'something'?
Let's start with what we shouldn't do:
No nation building, we suck at that.
No boots on the ground, because we have our own ISIS cells to stamp out here in America.
What is our moral responsibility in regards to taking refugees into the USA?
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 16, 2015 at 12:34#34290 likes
~sighs~ I really miss our shoutbox even though I never agreed with the name. Some of the best conversations were had there. 8-)
What is the USA supposed to do with this ISIS expansion?
This article points towards some answers: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 16, 2015 at 12:48#34330 likes
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 16, 2015 at 13:01#34360 likes
It's never going to end. This bullying of nations by a bunch of thugs and I am sorry if it offends but blowing thyself up, in an effort to cause mass casualty to civilians, is not in my moral playbook. Step up, put together an Army and fight other soldiers, of other nations, like the real nation you are claiming to be and killing for but innocent civilians in every country are 'off limits'.
>:o
Mayor of SimpletonNovember 16, 2015 at 17:25#34571 likes
I completed Soma last night. Great game. Very scary, and great storyline. Also quite philosophical, in that brings up questions of identity throughout the game.
Anyone been to the Philippines? Any suggestions on what to do (or not to do) there? (Going around Christmas).
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 22, 2015 at 14:49#38670 likes
Reply to Baden If you haven't already had the joy and challenge of playing the game MahJong now is the time to learn. We have some very good friends in Chicago from the Philippines who some 40 years ago brought back and gifted us the game. Those who play it well are as wickedly talented as those who play poker but it is even a blast for a newbie to play!
Reply to Bitter Crank Strangely enough, BC, I don't have much of an idea what to do over there. The three plus points were: it's warm, not too far away and I've never been there before. Bit of a spur of the moment decision.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 24, 2015 at 13:57#41100 likes
They did a report on the cat thing tonight. What I understood was that Brussels law enforcement asked their citizens to not post any current pictures of what might be going on, in an effort to protect their work. Hence more cats than ever on the internet. :-}
An Italian newspaper called it “Belgistan,” and a German one declared Belgium “kaput.” A French writer, Éric Zemmour, suggested in a recent radio interview that instead of bombing Raqqa, Syria, the self-proclaimed capital of the Islamic State, “France should bomb Molenbeek.” New York Times
Also, too many cat videos on internet... cat porn.
ArguingWAristotleTiffNovember 26, 2015 at 13:21#42420 likes
Happy Thanksgiving my fellow 'thinkers'!
I want to take a moment to tell each and every one of you how very Thankful I am to have you in my life. I begin everyday with you and wouldn't have it any other way. Whether we agree on issues does not matter, what matters is having those around us who will tell us so. 8-)
Thank you for your love, your time and most of all your opinion~
Tiffers (L)
I had to change various DNS settings because the software update required me to use a CNAME instead of an A record, which meant that I had to move the DNS to CloudFlare because they allow CNAME records to be used with a host name--which is all Plush gave me--instead of an IP address, and then I couldn't get the MX records working and then the www to non-www redirect didn't work any more and -- well, I finally fixed it. Might have something to do with it. Maybe you've been trying to access http://www.thephilosophyforum.com instead of http://thephilosophyforum.com. It redirects to the correct URL now.
It was directing me to a cloudflare 'website is down' page. I should have paid closer attention to the exact error but yeah. I thought there was like a DOS attack going on or something.
The second biggest holiday for Americans is now behind us, merciful gawd. One more to go. I won't be spending Xmas with relatives. What is it about people... previously slightly to moderately interesting people developing late onset autism. They just sit there, don't communicate, stare at their cell phones, etc. Their monosyllabic conversational repartee isn't hostile -- it's socially incompetent.
One would like to give them something to talk about.
Driving home from work and the inevitability of my own death strikes me, time doesn't stop, I will die and disappear forever. Suddenly I'm screaming AHHHH AHHHH which makes it hard for me to hear the lecture from Daniel Coffeens course on rhetoric that I'm enjoying. To the other cars next to me nothing appears to be amiss; these sounds are heard by me alone. An image pops into my mind, I'm in a bubble, the screams cannot escape. There's a sense of kinship as they fade away, lost in time.
It used to be, after I looked at a thread, it's title would go grey presumably to show that I had seen the most current post. It no longer does this. Is that true for anyone else?
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 03, 2015 at 20:26#46440 likes
@Postmodern Beatnik
I was looking at your profile and noticed you have yourself listed as an old fashioned cowboy which got the song 'Old Fashioned Love Song' stuck playing in my head, prompting me to Thank you personally for that ear worm. On a side note, did you at one time wear a man bun? I vaguely remember seeing a picture of you with one but maybe that was just a figment of my imagination. :D
The WSJ doesn't run it's reader comments through a sieve the way papers like the NYT does. Perhaps they should. Or maybe they like what they are getting in the untreated flowage:
They are ALL complicit.
Islam is sick And bho wants more of them here He is after all a Hussein
The family members are always the ones who are so "surprised". These people knew what was go-ing on. It is high time to make the families accountable for the terrorist actions of their kin. If they knew they were accountable, they would be more inclined to alert the FBI or Police about their terrorist kin.
This leads one to believe that the shootings at the Health Department were just one leg of a much greater terrorist act. For example, Farook could have sprayed ebola virus (obtained through one of their recent trips to Saudi Arabia) on the grated cheese at a popular Italian restaurant. Symptoms for the ebola would only begin to show up 2-21 days after it was ingested by victims, and ebola itself would not be diagnosed for at least a week.
Not to mention that the Burka really was the right choice for her because she wasn't really all that attractive in the first place, unless you might have been a hard up goat keeper with a thin beard...just saying.
What you are really saying is the terrorists are winning and the police and the FBI don't have a clue what they are doing. The FBI are the guys who turn up, look at the dead bodies and say 'I never saw this coming'. They couldn't catch a cold, let alone a terrorist.
Well she married a wimp, and now: is the baby from him or is that where the war started.
Granted, they aren't all that bad (but a few are worse).
Mayor of SimpletonDecember 07, 2015 at 09:32#49160 likes
Been a bit busy...
... pretended to be a photographer for a 3 day medical conference (fake it successfully every years), but had to go through over 7000 photos making non-model (with big egos) look better than they really do using no flash in poorly light rooms of people mostly talking. (took another 7 days)
... now getting ready to fly to the USA in 7 days. Haven't been there at this time of the year for nearly 20 years. Not too sure how much time I'll have for ranting here in the next 5 weeks.
Atleast it's a direct flight, as usually I fly to Washington DC via Paris. :-O
Fly in with lots of sweets and gingerbread and fly back with a lot of t shirts and baseball stuff. A fair trade. :D
Meow!
GREG
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 07, 2015 at 12:10#49200 likes
Reply to Mayor of Simpleton Have I mentioned how excited I am that you are coming to the states for Christmas? I am really excited! 8-)
I will consider your initiation even if it does not include homosexuality, but you do know that if you don't make the initiation sufficiently difficult you can't expect long term loyalty.
Mayor of SimpletonDecember 07, 2015 at 17:44#49520 likes
Have I mentioned how excited I am that you are coming to the states for Christmas? I am really excited! 8-)
I've managed to overcome the issue of gifts for my sister and her two nice, yet overly naive, unknowingly snobbish and obscenely privileged children. I decided to contribute to the American national pastime of type-2 diabetes and bring them sweets. Lots of chocolates, ginger bread and other Austrian traditional means to create tooth decay... including a chocolate Krampus for each of them.
It was indeed entertaining, a bit traumatic and potentially dangerous.
These guys seriously drink their body weight in homeburned Schnaps.
Meow!
GREG
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 07, 2015 at 20:32#49560 likes
Reply to Mayor of Simpleton Ha! I cannot play it right now as I am on a business call but from the looks of the shape of that chocolate, I would suggest a Bunny instead, the fantastic ears and all! 8-)
Update: omg that is hilarious and I adore Jimmy Fallon but now I am kind of embarrassed at the idea that I saw a phallic shape in the chocolate uncovered. If I had to choose, I would take the Dark Chocolate version please! ;)
Reply to Bitter Crank Nicely done, Bell :). I still hope Trump wins the nomination because he will almost definitely lose the election, and also because he is honestly expressing the views of a large proportion of Republican voters. So, it will be a straightforward rejection of those rather than have them sneak through in the more subtle guise of some empty suit like Marco Rubio.
Mayor of SimpletonDecember 09, 2015 at 09:54#51100 likes
I still hope Trump wins the nomination because he will almost definitely lose the election,...
I'm not too sure I agree.
RANT ALARM!!!
Americans tend to have quick and selective amnesia about such rants... calling them 'colorful' or even worse 'a strong leader' (confusing the idiot who screams loudly first and thinks never with being a strong leader... examples include Reagan, Bush, Baby W Bush, Baby Baby Jeb (I caused 9/11) Bush, McCain, Rubio and so on) ...
... then finding some sort of non-issue issue to make as the cornerstone of the election... like "W" managed to do with Gay Marriage in the face of a real terrorist threat. (Yes; trivial issues for a trivial folk! Who then bitches about the shit decisions they make as if it is someone else's fault... thus start to pray before the prey upon scapegoats and go hunting for witches... then again, what can you expect from a bunch of puritans who are simply fearful and boring!)
I fear if he wins the nomination, the American public is really stupid enough to elect him. They watch FOX News and think this is news. Let's not confuse being hopeful with being gullible.
Let's face it... Europe is far too busy with finding places for the current crop of refugees to bother with intellectual refugees coming from the USA as well... :-O
... then again; tit for tat...
... where did America get all the intellectuals from after WWII in the first place? ;)
Meow!
GREG
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 13, 2015 at 15:51#53100 likes
Really rough waters with my Dad's health... my mind is spinning and I am not sure what I should be praying for...
At what point do you not want to continue living? What are the deal breakers for you? Loss of memory? Loss of control of your faculties? The inability to stand up? Where do you draw that line?
Thoughts please (L)
unenlightenedDecember 13, 2015 at 20:11#53260 likes
Fortunately, it's not usually our line to draw. So you don't need a contents list to your prayer, but can leave things to the gods to decide for themselves, and simply deal with the next thing as best you can.
It is, of course, one thing for me to decide when I no longer wish to continue living. Deciding for somebody else is... problematic. Your father is 1) how old? 2) has been diagnosed with...? 3) his doctor has an expectation of how much time remaining? Worse, you are not there in Chicago, no, yes? So all of this is being considered at a far remove, perhaps, with variously biased reports trickling through?
It's a tough situation.
One thing to determine, is there anything practical that can be done? Doctors are not always helpful here. They might propose invasive tests to determine the cause of a heart problem in a man who is 102 years old, and who couldn't possibly survive the then-recommended surgery. But, it depends on the doctor.
If there is nothing that can practically be done curatively, what can be done to improve the man's QOL for his remaining time?
If there is something that can be done to improve the QOL (there usually is, unless there are zero resources) are the necessary resources available?
If what can be done has been done, then one may reasonably pray for the grace to accept whatever will happen next. Actually, it's not a bad idea to pray for that, even if one is merely going to the dentist to get one's teeth cleaned. The possibly of disaster is always just one step behind us.
We are, none of us, put together in such a way that we can deal with a human loved one's on-coming death in a perfectly rational manner. We took very good care of our retriever, but when she was elderly and had a stroke, it was off to the vet for euthanasia -- no heroic measures, please. No extended suffering. No long term care at home. Just a painful "So long old friend."
So many of us have been, and/or will be, in your situation with a parent, spouse, child, friend, or even our selves, and it doesn't seem to get easier with practice. It helps me to think there is only so much that can usually be done, and even what can be done isn't always a good idea. Sometimes we just have to let go.
I'm trying to decide how to structure my health care directive. Should I end up in a complicated, messy inconclusive, fairly bad situation, I'd like to suggest that they just give me a shot like the vet gave our dog. In fact, they can call in the vet to do it. I've lived long enough that a sudden departure can't be considered terrible at this point. Who should I ask to make the decision if I am non compos mentis? I have a sister who is ready to pull the plug on my case right now, but she'll probably die before me, so she's no help, really.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 17, 2015 at 11:39#55690 likes
Reply to unenlightened Thank you unenlightened~ I had not heard of it before. Acceptance of losing my Dad mentally before I lose him physically was something I never expected. I try to believe that it is up to his God and he to make the decision to cease living but I am not so sure anymore. (L) Life was a whole lot easier when I believed in God.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 17, 2015 at 12:55#55730 likes
Your father is 1) how old? 2) has been diagnosed with...? 3) his doctor has an expectation of how much time remaining? Worse, you are not there in Chicago, no, yes? So all of this is being considered at a far remove, perhaps, with variously biased reports trickling through?
My Dad will be 73 this coming March. He has been Bipolar and medicated since 71, adult onset Diabetes but still light enough to be controlled orally, Parkinson's disease diagnosed 3 years ago, Roman Catholic born, raised, educated and attended church daily until the age of 51. At the age of 51 he began dating a woman (now his 3rd wife) who was Mormon and has since been a devote Mormon, much to the horror of the remaining Roman Catholic's in the family. I have no idea how much time he has remaining but my brother (4yrs my senior) who lives in Chicago, sees my Dad about once a month, who now has Medical Power of Attorney of my Dad (transferred out of his wife's name 3 weeks ago) says that my Dad is no where near qualifying for Hospice (which my Mom was a nurse for the last 20yrs of her career) but I am not so sure.
My Dad's physical health has been ravaged by Parkinson's for the last three years to the point he is in bed 80% of the time, total loss of control over bodily functions and in the last three months, he has been searching for words but nothing dramatic and his mind has been sharp until about three weeks ago. He had fallen 3 days in a row where he needed help getting up, so she called the paramedics and on the 4th fall his wife demanded that he get checked out at the hospital. They hospitalized him for Pneumonia, sent him to a rehab for his balance and he has been declining ever since. The rehab sent him home since he was no longer improving, providing him a hospital bed at home and he lasted 32 hrs before he was back at the rehab place. The day before he was discharged he was having to be lifted off the bed and into a wheel chair with an electrical lift so it made no sense as to why they would discharge him but it turned out it was Medicare limits having been exhausted for 2015 so unless his blood sugar spiked or he became dehydrated and HAD to be admitted to the hospital, he was home until Jan. 1, 2016 when MC benefits renew. He is requiring 24 hr care and in home nursing will run $20 an hour and with Parkinson's it could easily run $500 a day, as he requires a two person lift. 32 hours later we had him back at the same place that had discharged him and that is where he is now.
My Dad was able to debate me all his life and it is something we enjoy, actually our whole family is that way but for me and Dad, it is special. I am the only one of his three children that have always accepted his change in religion and that has allowed him to speak openly to me, something I respect and treasure. My half sister who lives less than 5 miles from our Dad, has not allowed him back into her life since he changed religion so refuses to be any part of our Dad's life. I know it breaks his heart but I have fought, loved and begged her to see different but as my Dad's last coherent words about my sister seeing him was "Your sister won't be around until the words 'Thy Kingdom come' are engraved in silver."
Last Friday my Uncle was present for my Dad's evaluation and was stunned. The Doctor asked my Dad what month it was: November. Do you know where you are? Rehab place. Are you married? Yes. Do you know your wife's name? Yes, Nancy. Can you add 5 + 15 = ? My Uncle said he saw my Dad searching for the answer but he said no. Then she asked him if he knew what 2 + 3=? And he answered 5. She asked again about 5 + 15=? He said he didn't know.
My world has fallen apart, I have no idea where he is. Is he over medicated (possibly playing with his own meds at home, then on full strength now?) or has he had a stroke or a series of TIA's? Why am I the only one questioning this?
I called my Dad on Sunday and when he got on the phone with me he, HE, was back. I was absolutely confused. His speech was sharp, his mind clear, so I asked him "Dad? Can you tell me what 5 + 15 =?" I could hear the questioning in his voice and he said "20, why are you asking me this?" I said because on Friday you could not answer that question. He asked what question? I said the math question that was asked by the Doctor. He was in the middle of telling me I was crazy when my Uncle walked into the rehab facility in Chicago and I told him to ask his brother. So he did. I could hear my Dad ask my Uncle and my Uncle in his own words explained that what I was saying was true, that he couldn't do it. My Dad asked "What Doctor?" I told my Dad to enjoy the time with his brother and I would call him back.
I relayed this all to my brother and we are having his meds evaluated to make sure this is not just over medication because there is a 'fog' that seems to come and go in my Dad's responses. Or maybe he had a stroke. Something I suggested to my Dad on Friday, that I wish he would ask his Doctor for a CAT scan of his head to make sure he didn't have a stroke, which he responded with a STRONG NO. He is refusing to have another CAT scan because they have all come out normal. There is nothing wrong with his head.
My Mom says she thinks Hospice needs to be called in, that way his 24 hr care at home will be NC for him, will not run down his estate, will provide counseling for the family and be kept comfortable. All we need is for his Doc to say he has less than 6 months to live. When my mind goes there, I am at peace. To know that he is at home, surrounded by his home, my Uncle, his wife if she sticks around and Hospice Angels. People who really give a damn. But my brother and my Dad's wife think that he has much longer than 6 months to live....which leaves me with the quandary as to what to pray for.
My Dad has said for many years, though he can't recall it now, that if the Good Lord decided to not have his eyes open tomorrow, that he will have lead a good life and would be okay with it. That idea bothered me greatly, to the point I asked him to stop saying that and he did.
It is becoming more clear to me that people don't always cease living in one day but when am I being selfish to pray for him to improve and not to pray for the God he prays to, to take him, that it is okay with me.
Mom says my Dad is a proud man and he has lost his dignity and it seems men have a harder time losing their dignity than a woman. She says that I need to stop asking for this test and that test, that in all her time in Hospice, it was the out of state loved ones that felt not enough was being done. That those around the loved one everyday, was more accepting. ~breaking down again~
She says it is time for me to be his daughter, not yet another person trying to figure out what is wrong with him (my testing his math ect). To allow him to talk about what he wants and when he doesn't feel like talking, talk to him. Not the crying, I love you, over and over like he is drowning. Talk to him about his Grandkids, talk to him about the weather, the places you have been, about his God, about whatever he would want to talk about if he could. Enjoy the days when he is alert, be his ray of sunshine, be the one he prays with, be the one who says it's okay for him to go when he wants to meet God, be the one that says 'Dad................I'll be a;gfiht......"
I just can't. It's not my nature and it just makes me sad to the depths of my soul and like he taught me, when you get kicked down, you rise up stronger than ever before. Well? Am I not supposed to be the one telling him that now? I don't want him to think I don't love and am giving up on him.
Oh yeah and it's Christmas and ...everything that goes with celebrations that I don't feel like celebrating, fun that just seems so trivial, people in other cars laughing, how? I feel very, very alone.
Hi ArguingWAristotleTiff, I lost my dad back in March of this year. He and I had developed a close relationship over the last 15 years, which was missing while I was growing-up and he was working. My brother flew in to visit him a couple of weeks before he passed away and while my Dad had lost a lot of his ability to talk, he said in my and brother's presence that "Now I have everything I need", words I will always remember.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff All of this is very tough to deal with, whether one lives 1500 miles away or lives in the same house.
Regarding the CAT scan and a stroke... If he had a stroke, which is always a possibility, there probably isn't much that can be done about it. If it was a stroke caused by a clot, blood thinners could be prescribed; if it was caused by bleeding, clotting drugs could be prescribed. Both kinds of drugs require close monitoring and can backfire severely. Or, a CAT scan might find some oddity or another, and then what do you do about that?
None of the care alternatives are particularly pleasant. If he needs nursing home care, he will probably receive it using his own funds first, then -- when those are depleted -- Medicaid. Medicaid allows for an estate to be divided (not way ahead of time, though) so that the spouse is not impoverished. It is now too late to distribute assets -- that would have had to be done several years ago. OR, if assets were distributed now, there would be several years during which the state might seem repayment. If assets were distributed now (to avoid losing them) and your father needed medicaid services before 3 to 5 years from now, then the state of Illinois or the applicable county would most likely sue to recover the too-late distributed assets after your father's death.
Hospice requires a terminal condition. Your father probably isn't close to death with good supportive care. (That doesn't mean "in good shape" of course.)
A line you might take: Your sister's visiting her father, all the while ignoring Mormonism, would be one of the corporal works of mercy.
Some of the drugs for Parkinson's Disease can be very problematic -- especially for people with major mental illnesses -- like bi-polar. On the other hand, if one does have PD, the drugs can make a big difference, at least for a period of time. They generally fizzle out over time. Are you, is your father, aware of the new "pacemaker" type implant for Parkinson's? It can work, and it doesn't involve deep-brain surgery (as far as I know). It uses electrical stimulation to suppress tremors and release paralysis. Not everyone is a good candidate -- it's not so much a matter of age, as other factors. So I gather.
Yes, it hard just "being" the son, daughter, spouse, friend of somebody who is suffering. One wants to step in and do something that makes everything all better. Like, have they thought of..., or have they tried..., or they should... and so on.
Generally, what can be done for us and our various ailments is circumscribed by external realities. Like, if the wheel chair can't fit through the front door, then... Or if insurance doesn't cover that procedure, then... or if the doctor that I see doesn't think thus and so, then... It may not be fair, or understandable, or soluble, but generally all problems can not be swept away. Eventually we run up against brick walls.
unenlightenedDecember 18, 2015 at 20:32#56250 likes
For them as knew Oliver Carter, aka Mars Man in another place, he has died today. A frustrating windbag to discuss with at times, but a decent, smart fellow.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 19, 2015 at 13:11#56530 likes
Reply to CavacavaReply to Bitter Crank Thank you for your explaining so much of this to me, things I can objectively contemplate and agree with, if it were about another person's family member. It is when it comes to My Dad that I suddenly lose my logical way and am led by my emotional love. But I am trying to be that daughter that my Mom suggests that I be but I get the feeling that I don't ever want to be 'good' at this., (L)
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 19, 2015 at 13:30#56540 likes
(L) Oli, what a beautiful person, what a beautiful soul, what a loss to the world we all know. (L)
My grandma died on Tuesday. She had suffered from Alzheimer's many year previos -- for some 15 years. In an odd way it is a relief. In a straightforward way it is a sadness, because it signifies an end to a person who was nice to everyone -- not just to her family, but to everyone period. She would forgive any sin, and bear any illness with grace. Even the one she knew would destroy her. RIP. It makes me wish an afterlife existed.
Speaking of Alzheimers... Maybe it is the beginning of Alzheimer's disease for me, but certain headlines have been bothering me lately. For example, this in the NYT today: ""School Segregation Persists in Gentrifying Neighborhoods, Maps Suggest." Are the maps suggesting that school segregation keeps gentrifying neighborhoods, (and why are the maps making that suggestion to the schools in the first place) or are gentrifying neighborhoods holding on to segregation in schools? I'm pretty sure (without reading the article) that "school segregation" is the subject, "persists" is the intransitive verb, and "gentrifying neighborhoods" is the object of the preposition 'in".
I see a lot of headlines with ambiguous meanings. Is this new, did I never notice it before, or did I used to understand the abbreviated grammar of headlines, but am now losing the ability?
I see a lot of headlines with ambiguous meanings. Is this new, did I never notice it before, or did I used to understand the abbreviated grammar of headlines, but am now losing the ability?
I think it depends on where you read the headlines. Some of the stuff on Yahoo is incredibly stupid.
I like to read the articles and then criticize the lack of education of Yahoo writers. Bummer ain't it when life's few little pleasures are become so absurd.
I'd like to share something I found to be truly beautiful. It's a video of a man playing piano in public in an airport in Paris, when suddenly a stranger comes over and helps play. It's remarkable and made me smile. Hope it does the same to you as well.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 20, 2015 at 12:38#57580 likes
Reply to Moliere {{{Moliere}}} I am so sorry for your loss, especially at this time of year~ I am right there with you in wishing there was an afterlife that we know of. Maybe there is? My thoughts are with you and your family~ (l)
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 20, 2015 at 12:54#57590 likes
I see a lot of headlines with ambiguous meanings. Is this new, did I never notice it before, or did I used to understand the abbreviated grammar of headlines, but am now losing the ability?
I have a feeling that the "ambiguous meanings" you are seeing in the headlines of the NYT have NOTHING to do with your mental stability or early indicators of Alzheimer's but rather you are seeing a gross display of the lazy writers/Editors at the less than respectable NYT. :D
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 20, 2015 at 12:54#57600 likes
Just swap hemispheres every 6 months and you'll get endless sun! Some regions in Australia look like like they may be in the middle of very warm summer at the moment.
Reply to Bitter Crank The winter wonderland ahh feeling lasts for a few minutes, until you realize you have to shovel your porch, crank up the heat (and your heating bill), and risk getting into an accident on the icy, disgustingly slushy roads.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 22, 2015 at 11:28#58480 likes
Reply to invizzy Here in Arizona we will have snowfall on late Christmas Eve and Early Christmas Morning. :D The Southwest of the USA, go figure! No, no, no, nothing about global warming going on here! :D
The winter wonderland ahh feeling lasts for a few minutes, until you realize you have to shovel your porch, crank up the heat (and your heating bill), and risk getting into an accident on the icy, disgustingly slushy roads.
Bah humbug. I live in the Pennines, we had two white Christmasses in a row in 2010/11 if memory serves. I like it when it happens, walking out in the pureness, the way entire landscapes transform - but then, I don't have a porch. Come to think of it, I did break my elbow a few years ago on ice but that hasn't put me off!
I might not be as focused on The Philosophy Forum, and on philosophy in general, as I have been. Recently, when I'm not at work, I've been spending more time playing Rainbow Six Siege on my PS4, and when it comes to academic matters, I have a desire to learn more new stuff of a different sort than philosophical. For example, historical, scientific or mathematical. Hence, I've been learning about the Spanish Civil war, Ancient Rome, Relativity, QM, and calculus. I've barely scratched the surface of those last three.
ArguingWAristotleTiffDecember 31, 2015 at 13:16#65290 likes
Wishing all a Happy New Years!
Anyone want to tell 2015 to KMA? And a HUGE welcoming hello to 2016?
:D
Reply to Sapientia It is a good film, a great one in my opinion, but that may just be because I'm a Star Wars nerd.
DeleteduserrcJanuary 02, 2016 at 06:02#66470 likes
New Star Wars is a great, well-constructed (edited, photographed, acted, written) movie. A million times better than the prequels. But, narratively and thematically, it's over-the-top eager to mirror the original trilogy. To the point where I honestly think the prequels had better vision, better world-building (while still being awfully executed.) If Abrams can summon some originality while sustaining the quality level, the forthcoming films have the potential to be amazing.
DeleteduserrcJanuary 02, 2016 at 06:06#66480 likes
Reply to jorndoe
It's awesome all those mathematics books are available. In my opinion, tho, with the very rare exception of natural geniuses, math more complex than college calculus is all but impossible to learn on one's own, outside of an academic (or mentor-mentee) setting. Especially if you're trying to cram your autodidactic studies into the precious free hours available outside of work and errands and family and etc etc.
Reply to csalisbury I completely agree. I think the new film would have been a near perfect one if it only had a more original story. They definitely went a little overboard on the fan-service references and "poetic" repetition of the original trilogy. Hopefully the next installments won't suffer from the same fate.
Yeah, by and large, some of those books are in-depth on very specific topics.
In general, I find that making such material available to anyone, is a great gesture, though.
A highly gifted student, Jamie had been taking his high school’s advanced math and science courses since seventh grade, so it’s no surprise that he’d exhausted major portions of their STEM curriculum. That’s when his parents turned to MIT OpenCourseWare. They wanted to use OCW’s 18.02SC Multivariable Calculus as a full-credit course.
Damn just read this and the math books are not free anymore. For the record I think that learning the maths is very possible. I didn't attend classes at uni and instead learnt from class notes or textbooks. Still managed to get through, and I was no where near the top of the class in terms of ability.
Being motivated enough to sit down with a mathematics book without having the pressure of approaching exams, is another story all together.
Reply to Hanover It's funny how often it is that something that is hard for me I don't usually like, but later after I get the hang of it, it's actually quite fun. Calculus is a good example of this. Physics is even better because it utilizes Calculus. I used to suck at both of them but after taking several classes (some were basically repeats) I actually quite enjoy working out problems.
Physics is even better because it utilizes Calculus. I used to suck at both of them but after taking several classes (some were basically repeats) I actually quite enjoy working out problems.
I only want to understand calculus so I can understand physics. If I could gain a good understanding of the latter without the former... But it seems pretty essential.
It's 2:30am here. I'm not tired enough to go to sleep, but I have to get ready for work in less than six hours. Drat.
Reply to Sapientia I'm the same way. Can't stand solving just bland mathematical problems. I need to be able to see how this is actually applicable (i.e. physics).
Physics at its heart is an empirical field, so you can arrive at a full understanding of physics through experimentation. If you want to know how far you'll bounce off the sidewalk for example, you can either slave away with a pen and paper, or you can just hop out the window. I'd suggest both. 1st do the math, then check your results.
Reply to Sapientia Physics is inseparable from calculus -- and much of physics is like this where an understanding of the subject matter depends upon an understanding of the mathematics. It's hard work at first but it actually makes things easier, hence the use of math.
QUESTION from the New York Times: Does day-old, leftover kale salad have less nutritional value than kale that is fresher?
MY ANSWER: Oh... a little less. But really, it doesn't make any difference how old kale is. It's a crude disgusting dark, green leafy weed to start with, and it goes down hill from there. Best thing to do with kale (fresh, frozen, 10 weeks old and slimy) is to throw it on the compost heap along with the dead squirrels, dandelions roots, rotten tomatoes, etc.
Kale can be delicious if you choose the right variety and you choose the right recipe. I like it in a salad, with oil oil, garlic, Parmesan cheese and lemon juice, a little kosher salt and pepper.
It stays fresh a lot longer than most leafy vegetables.
Please prepare your best kale salad; pack it up nicely, and mail it to me. We'll see whether it gets stale or not. Take your best shot at cooking some and send that along too. I'm willing to bet that the kale will fail the test. (I'm not anti-vegetable. I will eat broccoli, brussels sprouts, lima beans, peas, beans, cabbage, asparagus, rutabaga, turnip, carrot, lettuces, radishes, beets, tomatoes, onions, peppers, spinach, garlic, and so forth. Just... no kale.
Kale can be delicious if you choose the right variety and you choose the right recipe. I like it in a salad, with oil oil, garlic, Parmesan cheese and lemon juice, a little kosher salt and pepper.
I'm not back, though. There's this person who keeps mulling over the nature of knowledge and it thinks it's me. It feels like it's wandering off into uncharted territory and it has a lot of respect for this particular set of humanoids.
I don't think I've ever eaten kale, but I'm thinking it can't be that bad, being a variety of the Brassica oleracea species along with broccoli, brussels sprouts, cauliflower, and cabbage, all of which are top-class vegetables.
What's your favourite brassica? I can't decide between broccoli and brussels sprouts.
Reply to StreetlightX Yep. I briefly parboil them first, let them cool for a few minutes, then cut them in half and fry them hard. Bacon lardons and pine-nuts optional.
I've just been to see Star Wars. It's so good! I wanna see it again, and I wanna see the sequels.
I saw it just a few weeks ago, but it seemed to me as if I saw first it back in 1977.
I suppose that not everyone can remember 1977, as either they weren't born yet or let's face it... the 70's were difficult to remember, due to it being the 70's or the various chemicals of the time.
WHO IS REY?
Answer is easy:
She's Luke's transgender clone.
Meow!
GREG
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 10, 2016 at 14:02#73380 likes
Reply to Mayor of Simpleton I went as Princess Lea for Halloween that year, so yeah, I remember! Welcome home Brother of mine! You have been missed! (L)
[i][b]*** EXTRA *** EXTRA *** READ ALL ABOUT IT ***
Father of Koch Brothers Helped Build Nazi Oil Refinery, Book Says
The father of the billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch helped construct a major oil refinery in Nazi Germany that was personally approved by Adolf Hitler, according to a new history of the Kochs and other wealthy families.[/i][/b]
The book, “Dark Money,” by Jane Mayer, traces the rise of the modern conservative movement through the activism and money of a handful of rich donors: among them Richard Mellon Scaife, an heir to the Mellon banking fortune, and Harry and Lynde Bradley, brothers who became wealthy in part from military contracts but poured millions into anti-government philanthropy.
It's available RIGHT NOW. It's waiting for you.
Read it and weep. Probably.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 12, 2016 at 12:42#74200 likes
This video popped up on my news feed and it didn't take long to relate Truth and realities
Right or left doesn't matter. Not much has changed for the better in the 30 years since I have been out of High school.
If you find yourself painting lots of Greek Orthodox icons, just remember: nobody wants an icon that was painted by an atheist, so just deposit them at the Goodwill or the Salvation Army... then nobody will know.
The icon isn't about the painter, it is about the one painted being true. Otherwise how could Matisse, a staunch atheist, have designed Chapelle du Rosaire de Vence.
While convalescing from cancer in 1941 he advertised for a pretty nurse.
Monique Bourgeois got the job.
She entered the convent in 1943 and when Matisse moved to Venice (1946?), she convinced him to do the design work. He had been baptized as a Catholic, but was non-practicing... Catholics divide all humanity into all those baptized and those not baptized. They are not too concerned about the atheist moniker, because as long as you have been baptized, all it takes is one good/sincere act of contrition, and ya'll are home free.
He started on the 4 yr. project in 1947 at age 77.
Ok, so I'm experimenting with this notion.. that I could put my icons in a gallery. Because even though they're somewhat derivative, it's the emotion that comes through them that's important to me.... the virgin resting her head on her child's head.. maybe thinking that he's divine and hopefully she'll die before he does...
I'm going to cry now.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 13, 2016 at 12:25#74730 likes
Ugh....live and learn. When starting a discussion with another member, there is no save draft function which is no big deal. But when I sent it to myself to continue on writing later, it disappeared into the ether. :s An hour of writing lost but lesson learned.
Sam Harris is coming to Melbourne. Pretty happy that the tickets are $120. If they were cheaper I'd probably go to see him, even though the idea of listening to him makes me queasy.
Reply to mcdoodle Mm, I'm assuming he was on top of it, there were cheaper tix which have already sold out. For anyone else interested around Brisbane, Melb or Sydney.
On January 8 the American Dialect Society announced “they” as its 2015 Word of the Year. Apparently for its gender 'purity'.
I've considered forming the That/What Organization that (what) will be committed to eliminating the word "that" and having it replaced with "what" in all instances. Instead of saying "you are the one that I want," it'd be "you are the one what I want." It's fun, childlike, adds a bit a variety, and, most importantly, no stupider than having an organization that chooses a word of the year.
am not sure I will ever understand the 'iff' as opposed to 'if' thing but like Algebra, can we not get along in this world without it? Or 'itt"? ;)
If you understand logic, you will rule the world. You don't understand logic, do you rule the world? Maybe, nobody ever said the only way for you to rule the world was by understanding logic. That was just one way.
Iff you understand logic, you will rule the world. You don't understand logic, do you rule the world? No, I just said that the only way for you to rule the world was by understanding logic.
I gotta say, as much as I enjoy cold weather and snow, I'm ready for a rainy spring. There is something reinvigorating about spring, like a re-birth. Some of my best memories are of me running a few miles outside, though the trees, while a spring thunderstorm rolls in and the wind pushes me on. It's feels magical. I can't wait until the ice melts and the trails look something like this.
Anyone want to join me in a quest in Middle Earth? :)
Can't stand summer, though. Too damn hot, stagnant and boring.
In Taiwan, there is a church. It is 55 feet tall, 36 feet wide, made of 320 pieces of glass, and looks like a giant high-heeled shoe. Like Cinderella’s glass slipper. . Designed for female worshipers who fit.
Mayor of SimpletonJanuary 15, 2016 at 16:40#75710 likes
We have very similar places of 'worship' in Austria where courageous young emaciated men wearing neon colored unibody suits of neoprene standing on over sized skis and slide off such towers to the pleasure and screams of teen aged girls.
I'm trying to track down if this essay is by *the* Frederic Jameson. It fits chronologically. And seems to fit his writing. Just wondering if other people have insight on this. I tripped across it when looking up stuff on Zardoz, an incredibly silly movie that's a muse to all lovers of bad film.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 16, 2016 at 15:40#76390 likes
Iran catches US Sailors on the day of the State of the Union, without public resolution or mention by Obama to the American people. Now Iran is releasing 4 dual citizenship prisoners on the eve of the lifting of US/UN(?) sanctions. It seems as though they are clearing the slate.
Do you believe Iran can be trusted? Can we rebuild a new connection with Iran?
Can Iran be trusted? The question is more complicated than it first appears.
Every country pursues policies what it's executive officials believe are in the best interests of their country. The United States does this, and so does Iran, and every other country. There is no reason to suppose that Iran will always (or ever) perceive its best interests to be the same as ours. We can trust other countries to pursue their best interests, rather than ours. This applies to everyone. Lithuania and Russia, for instance, will pursue their separate national interests, regardless of what their opposites in Moscow and Vilnius would prefer.
Can Iran be trusted to never pursue an atomic bomb? No. That's why countries sign treaties, get agreements on inspections, gets the UN atomic energy group involved, and so on. In addition we engage in espionage and they engage in counterespionage. They might consider new secret activities, and we will consider more intrusive surveillance. We also hold out carrots, (probably attached to big sticks).
Did the United States want France to develop an independent nuclear force? I'm not sure -- but probably not. Are the French bad actors because they went ahead and did it anyway? No. We clearly preferred to have a monopoly, or as close to one as possible. That didn't work out. The UK, USSR, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa and Israel all have nuclear weapons that we preferred they not have (well, maybe with the exception of the UK and Israel). But they have them now, and we have to cope with that. Nuclear weapons are a problem that we invented, after all.
Same for missiles. Will Iran continue to develop missiles to explore space? Most likely. Would they ever consider putting a bomb on top of one of their bigger missiles and send it off into the wild blue yonder, maybe to Tel Aviv? There would be something wrong with their imaginations if they didn't at least think of it. After all, we have all sorts of missiles with bombs on top of them, ready to fly off into the wild blue yonder. That's another problem we invented, or at least eagerly borrowed from the defeated Nazis.
Has the United States and our allies always been nice to Iran? Well, hardly. The British, French, and the US have been busily fucking over the Middle East for our own benefit for ever so many years. Do the Iranians wonder if they can trust as? I should think so!
The goal is not to eliminate distrust. The goal is to manage a mutually suspicious relationship.
Mayor of SimpletonJanuary 17, 2016 at 11:27#76860 likes
And it's been snowing here. How beautiful snow is when it first falls. Soon a snowman appears on some waste ground. Three breathless girls pass me taking sledges to the field at the end of the street. I hope someone throws a snowball at me, but nobody does; I'm too old and respectable.
Reply to mcdoodle Are you too old and respectable to throw a snowball at them? It seems like there aren't enough deconstructed, post-modern snowmen being made. Where are all the theorists after a snow fall?
Reply to Cavacava I'm super stoked for these kinds of celestial events. If you have a decent pair of binoculars, you should be able to see a fuzzy Jupiter or Saturn, the rest will just be bright lights of different colors. If you have a telescope, though, they are truly breathtaking.
If you have trouble keeping the binoculars steady, try sitting down on the ground and bringing your legs close to your body, then rest your arms on your knee caps for stability.
Reply to darthbarracuda It's 6 below zero -- I'm not going outside to watch the second coming, let along some points of light line up.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJanuary 19, 2016 at 12:40#77340 likes
My heart is broken at the news of Glenn Frey's passing~ (L)
Well, I heard some people talking just the other day
And they said you were gonna put me on a shelf
Well, let me tell you I've got some news for you
And you'll soon find out it's true
And then you'll have to eat your lunch all by yourself
Coz I'm al-ready gone, and I'm fee-ling strong
I will si-ing this vict'ry song, woo-oo-oo, my my, woo-oo-oo!!
Although it is cold here in Atlanta, we have no snow, so we resort to playfully throwing rocks, bringing out our inner child, laughing with joy. A young child emerges from the bushes, a look of pure delight in his eyes as he rears back his arm to heave a fractured brick towards me. I see him first and sling forth a two by four with a protruding nail that catches him just above the cleft of his nose.
The giggles are replaced with a deafening sadness and we all trod back to our homes in an expressionless zombie like state. I return to eat a blue popsicle, staring out the window, wondering why the mailman is defecating in the street.
Pretty cool story, huh? Feel free to offer reviews.
Apparently, if you need to get something done and you are planning on doing it, you shouldn't tell other people that you are going to do it until you actually have, because telling other people releases the same neurotransmitters that are released if you actually do the action.
(I think) I have some good news. Lately I have been feeling, psychologically speaking, more positive and upbeat. This is a tricky time for me right now, though, because I think I might be beginning to progress out of my characteristic chronic depression and I feel like I'm walking on thin ice here. No guarantees, but I'm definitely cautiously hopeful. I will be taking a break from being an active participant in philosophical discussions for the time being until I can reach a more stable state of mind. Peace.
That's a good question...I mean they don't sound quite right, do they ( too enthusiastic, optimistic or something like that), very well informed and easy to talk with.
I thought about responding to your thread, maybe latter. I think the question is perhaps best answered about another culture, and in that answer, revelations about one's own culture become evident. (M Bakhtin)
I deal with Canadians, who drive me nuts, so I will comment on them.
Do you think they could make cultured meatballs composed of human cells that don't require the slaughter of a human? We could finally have ethical cannibalism.
An excellent idea. You can first have sex with your date and then make her your dinner. Of course, you should avoid eating certain portions in the event you didn't practice safe sex.
Yeah, I even creeped myself out with this post, which means it's a keeper.
The problem with most women (likely all, but my sample size is slightly less than all) is their objection to post-marital sex. You therefore proceed at significant peril by waiting until marriage.
My suggestion is to take advantage of this new cloning technology, where they can create human beings, albeit dead ones, through some sort of sorcery. The lifelessness of the entity shouldn't be terribly alarming, considering it was never alive. I wouldn't even say it was stillborn, but I'd instead call it stilldead, as in it was dead then, dead now, and dead forever -- still fucking dead.
I'm reminded of a trip I once took to England, a place near and dear to some of our posters I understand. I asked the wench (I think that's what you call English barmaids - at least I did) for some water. She said "still"? I said, "yeah, I still want the water. It's only been a few seconds." It turns out they have different sorts of water in England, which I suspect has something to do with the Queen, but I could be wrong. I do know England has a Queen, and America, blessed be she, does not.
Back to the question of whether one should eat the fruits of this new technology. I doubt it's no more unnatural than a Big Mac. It's quite similar actually, as both are covered with special sauces. The Big Mac with some sort of salad dressing and your stilldead princess covered with the emissions from the recent rogering you subjected her to (if I must spell it out for you guys).
I think this has answered the concerns above, where some were concerned about the pre-marital sex aspect of faux-real meat and others about the healthfulness of the substance. I remain open to suggestions, but I think you (and I'm referring to all my readership here - other than the ridiculous wooden shoed Dutch), like me, should be excited about being able to eat (and by "eat" I mean both to consume and sodomize - perhaps all in one setting) this new product.
I'm reminded of a trip I once took to England, a place near and dear to some of our posters I understand. I asked the wench (I think that's what you call English barmaids - at least I did) for some water. She said "still"? I said, "yeah, I still want the water. It's only been a few seconds." It turns out they have different sorts of water in England, which I suspect has something to do with the Queen, but I could be wrong. I do know England has a Queen, and America, blessed be she, does not.
So, you Yanks don't have sparkling water? Odd. If only you would've been content with taxation without representation and hadn't kicked up such a fuss, then you too could have reaped the reward of carbonated water. But no, you had to go and destroy our beloved tea and win the war.
The Suppressive Slave and Vengeful Tariff Act of 1745 as submitted by Lord Alfredrick of Shropershire and subsequently accepted and decreed by His Majesty specifically forbade the consumption of carbonation as it was rightly believed that its ill humors would interrupt sexual function and result in diminutive genitalia. It was actually an unrelated amendment to the Act, as you can tell by its title.
The actual reason the tea (the national drink of China) was dumped into Boston Harbor (and few know this) was in retaliation against the Chinese for their unfair labor practices, refusal to adopt clean air standards, manipulation of their currency, and dismal record on human rights. While these problems with the Chinese had not yet emerged at the time of the Tea Party, it was obvious they were just a few hundred years around the corner, and the founding fathers wanted to strike when the iron was hot.
Yes, tea came from China. Many of our national treasures are of foreign origin. The Royal family, the national anthem, and curry. It all came from Africa, really. And before that, the sea. And before that, from gas and dust in space. And before that, from a very high density and high temperature state.
At Last!!!! North Korea did something truly imaginative and possibly useful:
They have been sending balloons southward across the DMZ carrying payloads of... trash. Actual trash -- everything from cigarette butts to (reports have it) used toilet paper. North Korea likes to call "South Korea a land of “political filth” and its leaders, including President Park Geun-hye, “human trash.” So, to illustrate their propaganda with substance, balloons loaded with garbage.
Now, if other militant regimes such as the Islamic State, or Assad, or The Saudis, Iranians, Americans, Russians, etc. wished to wage war -- do likewise. Send them your worst stuff: Collect a few tons of soggy Kleenex, put it in the nose cone of an ICBM, and let Moscow have it: A blast of used tissue and snot. Or all those bags of dog shit collected every day. No one would die, but some people would have to take a bath. Not the worst consequence of warfare.
I enjoyed a hamburger so fresh today that I could taste the sadness of the cow's only partially departed soul. As the sadness dissipated, the aftertaste of bitterness was pervasive. I would offer to those who wish a less poignant eating experience that you sufficiently age your beef to allow full passage to the world beyond.
Reply to Michael Whether it's a rebellion, a coup, a civil war, or a war for independence is all in the eyes of the beholder. All I know for sure is that you and your fam stayed back on your quaint little island and let others fight it out and then mine immigrated in the late 1800s once everything had been worked out.
The thing about computers is that they can be sexually arousing upon demand, but never sexually aroused or demanding, making them the perfect companion. The affection I have for my computer is unrequited, which would be sad, but for the fact that it's a computer.
If we allow gay marriage, next thing you know gay horses will be able to marry.
Reply to Sir2u My one true desire is to marry my gay horse computer, but sadly I cannot do so. Gay horse computers deserve the same rights as anyone else.
Pierre-NormandFebruary 17, 2016 at 02:50#87680 likes
Anyway, I apologise for any offence I caused. I didn't mean to discriminate against things. After all, things are people, too.
Wait...
ArguingWAristotleTiffFebruary 17, 2016 at 12:59#87870 likes
Hey, I just wanted to let you guys know I am back, back and processing. I'll be back up to speed on the boards but I am still working thru the family dynamics and all the paperwork that comes with trying to prepare for the inevitable. New path for me...if you know of any pitfalls I might come across, don't hesitate to PM me.
Thanks for hanging with me as I work thru this~
Tiffers
My one true desire is to marry my gay horse computer
Ride on then, you 2 byte cowboy.
ArguingWAristotleTiffFebruary 18, 2016 at 12:26#88990 likes
Commere my fine feathered friend...it's hot enough out here to have Owl wings for dinner if detached by sunrise. X-)
Thank you SIR, I will try to keep my chin up but not so much as I drown in the rain, with my nose in the air, like others in the family dynamics. Balanced is what I am looking for, fair, something along those lines. ;)
Accents continue to evolve, the linguists tell us, becoming regionally distinct. Some people can hear a distinct accent in Chicago. I can't. But one would have to hear people who have lived there a long time, though, not just arrived 5 years ago. There are, I think, some class overlays, too. Working class Minnesota white people tend to have a slightly different delivery than cultured (or would-be cultured) white Minnesotans. It's not "yuge" but noticeable.
Sanders' family was working class. My pastor was born and raised in Brooklyn too; she's 65. She no more sounds like she came from Brooklyn than Queen Elizabeth II does. Whether she got rid of it or never had it, don't know. My guess is that she was cocooned in a Norwegian Lutheran ghetto (there were, apparently, Norwegian Lutherans in Brooklyn. I don't know why they were there and not on the prairies digging up rutabagas). Upward mobile people generally don't want to own their rutabaga-digging-countrymen.
No doubt there is a south Georgia accent that is very distinct from the north Georgia twang that is different from the coastal accent. Savannah seems to have something unique as well. Metro Atlanta is watered down, almost a generic sort of accent. Isolation tends to bring about these accents, and the isolated often have less education and sophistication than the mobile.
Pet Peeve: I am sick and tired of the statement "...and changed [blank] forever." "Roosevelt, both lion and fox, was in office during the depression and the Second World War and changed America forever." Like, the depression and WWII didn't change America forever? Like America, Mozambique, and Madagascar don't change every minute? Certainly, Roosevelt changed America. So did Al Capone. So did your mother and father (they had sex and 9 months later you were born. Everything and everybody changes all the time.
The sub peeve here is "changed the course of history". History isn't following any course. If it was, the the future would be MUCH easier to predict. On 9/10/01 the management of the World Trade Center would have closed for a day or two. Or guided missiles would have shot the plane down. Or the government would have chosen some other building to knock over, maybe the Sears and Hancock Towers in Chicago.
That's a sub sub peeve -- people who think that the government plots heinous acts and then makes it look like innocent terrorists did it.
I also dislike it when people attach "phobia" to behavior they don't like. Islam-o-phobia. sexo-phobia, xenophobia. Phobia-hobbiests. Just admit it: You think everyone should like everything that lands on the plate, just because you do
Reply to Hanover Isolation might help embalm an accent (sort of like what happened in appalachia with the various British Islanders who first settled there), but accents also develop in populations who have frequent interactions with the rest of the world. Why people develop accents that are unlike their language predecessors, don't know. Why, for instance, is there a divide through Iowa between people who "wash" and people who "warsh"? Why is the sound of "o" in block becoming a higher vowel sound, more like "bleck" in some places?
English went through a huge "vowel shift" in the 14th century and later, when the continental manner of vowel pronunciation changed (relatively rapidly) from i sounds like long e to i sounds like eye; from e which sounds like ay (as in bay) to e as in bee, the insect? Don't know, but it did and it hasn't switched back since.
Reply to Baden See world, this is what happens when you think the elite are entitled to rule the world. Who's the joke on, the idiots you call Republicans or the Democrats who will have to answer to President Trump?
Reply to Hanover Everyone really. In Trump's favour at least he's not a donors' puppet like Hillary or Rubio. In fact, if I were American and I had to vote for one, I'd probably choose him over the Clinton. There's little more disgusting than faux liberal rhetoric being used as a cover for corporate lobbyists' policy wishlists.
Reply to Baden I suspect this is the sentiment that runs deep in the popular political psyche in America, and it's probably why Bernie Sanders performs better in head-to-head match-up polls with Republicans than Clinton even though he's 'tainted' with the socialist label. Clinton is a well-known figure, and there are a lot of Americans that hate her and see her as a kind of automaton for anonymous forces behind her and her own political career. Of course, with Trump, you're not electing the puppet but the puppet-master. Just because he's not taking money and can afford to fund his own campaign doesn't necessarily mean he won't be as respondent to 'corporate interests' (larger monopoly capitalists really) than the others. He'll still look after the interests of his class and his own firms. But of course he exploits populist sentiment.
Reply to Shevek Sure, given a free choice, I'd vote for Jill Stein anyway.
ArguingWAristotleTiffFebruary 25, 2016 at 12:00#90180 likes
Would it Surprise you if I told you I was a Trump supporter? X-)
Kinda figured it wouldn't since some are convinced that I am a closet Sarah Palin supporter, which I am but my "closet" is full with Prince, Michael Jackson and Barry Manilow all in there. :-}
In all seriousness, Trump embodies a smart CEO's tactic by not having to be the smartest person in the room but by being able to ADMIT your not and allowing that to empower you to surround yourself with those that are the smartest in the room. (Y)
Every person has their area of specialty and we cannot all be the "best" at everything but you can assemble a team of the "best" and be the "best leader". 8-)
Why is it 'home-grown leftist racist' if 1 white candidate wins a majority of black votes and the other white candidate doesn't?
The Great WhateverFebruary 28, 2016 at 22:25#90430 likes
Reply to Bitter Crank Because people on the left expect black people to vote the way they want them to, and get upset when they show signs of having their own opinions and beliefs.
The Great WhateverFebruary 28, 2016 at 23:46#90450 likes
Reply to darthbarracuda I think it goes beyond just an expectation, though, to a sense of indignation (how dare you not vote the way I want you to, and after all the good this white candidate will do for you...) The Democrats basically see black people as vote miners anyway, like their votes are a natural resource, so they get upset when they don't get to make use of that resource which they feel entitled to. Generally liberals don't believe anyone but white people are capable of making choices in my experience (if they vote for the wrong candidate it's because of being systematically misinformed by white people, whose responsibility it is to steer them in the right direction).
Reply to The Great Whatever Yawn. I'm not a liberal for starters. Secondly, I would have thought blacks as a demographic suffered more from Wall Street excesses than most so I was looking for an explanation; as in is there something the Clintons have done for the black community I don't know about. I'm not American so I may have missed it. But, as usual, you'll use any excuse to be an asshole.
The Great WhateverFebruary 29, 2016 at 00:46#90480 likes
Reply to Baden Whether I'm an asshole is beside the point. I was just pointing something out (and it's not just you).
And from what you just said in this post, yes, you are 'liberal,' even if you don't like the word. Wall Street Excesses?
rac·ism
?r??siz?m
noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
The Democrats in your example most certainly not viewing the black voters as inferior or superior (they are liberal after all). What they may be doing is stereotyping black voters.
But let's be honest here, the Democrats aren't the only ones on Earth that expect a group of people to act a certain way. That's no excuse for their behavior but they certainly aren't alone in their stereotyping.
The Great WhateverFebruary 29, 2016 at 01:17#90520 likes
Reply to The Great Whatever The more I interact with you the more I'm convinced that you're just trolling this whole place. Stop dragging people down into your pile of shit or get lost.
The Great WhateverFebruary 29, 2016 at 01:30#90540 likes
I would have thought blacks as a demographic suffered more from Wall Street excesses than most so I was looking for an explanation; as in is there something the Clintons have done for the black community I don't know about. I'm not American so I may have missed it.
Blacks have suffered from Wall Street "excesses" (or maybe it was Wall Street "normality") at least as much as most Americans have if not more, and I don't know what Hillary Clinton ever did that would make her vastly more attractive to Blacks than Bernie Sanders, other than have better name recognition.
Name recognition is nothing to sneeze at, whether selling Cadillacs or Clintons. If there is no such thing as bad publicity, then the Clintons have just about everybody except Trump beat. Trump and Clinton both have tons of bad publicity to their names, from Bill's "I didn't have sex with that woman" (a hand job doesn't count) on down to Hillary's email server scandal.
Who would do better in November -- Clinton or Trump? Hard hard hard to say, since both of them are doing so well in the benefits of bad publicity department, Trump being nothing but bad publicity. Perhaps blacks see Hilary as the natural heir of Barack Obama, she being his close-second adversary in the 2008 primaries and his Secretary of State. Maybe blacks see the idea of a Bernie Sanders presidency as dead-in-the-water. I prefer Sanders over Clinton, but unless there were a Democratic supermajority sweep of the House and Senate, a Sanders administration would be dead-in-the-water. A Jewish socialist would be about as anathema to the Tea Party as Barack's black liberal.
I prefer socialists, but any Democrat would be better than any of the available Republicans. 45 years ago the poet Charles Bukowski wrote a short story entitled "Politics Is Like Screwing a Cat in the Ass". If we may pause a moment to unpack a word...
Was Bukowski using the word "cat" in the mode of "hep-cats"? Hip, black, cool, 1950s 'cats' (guys) who know the score? Or was he suggesting the slightly more lurid and vivid image of trying to screw a feline in the ass? If you have tried to give an objecting feline a bath, you have some idea of how unpleasant screwing an actual cat in the ass might become.
I think he meant an actual cat. Politics as it is practiced is an absurd, nasty business with 20 claws per cat fully engaged.
Reply to darthbarracuda There may be stereotyping going on in general, but I don't think it's necessarily stereotyping to ask the question I did. The question does assume that blacks in America disproportionately occupy lower socioeconomic positions than average and the implication is the interests of Wall Street and its surrogates are less likely to be their interests. The assumption is just a simple fact to my knowledge and the implication is easily argued. What would be stereotyping would be the presumption that just because you're black you're interests are not those of Wall Street. That's different. It's a matter of numbers, which is where the 80% in the question comes in. You could ask the same of blue-collar whites if they voted for Hillary, but the statistics on those aren't so easily available.
I don't know what Hillary Clinton ever did that would make her vastly more attractive to Blacks than Bernie Sanders, other than have better name recognition
Thanks, this is what I'm trying to get at. Is it just name recognition, or is there any substance to it?
Reply to Thorongil "Liberal" is too amorphous to identify with clearly. I am sympathetic to aspects of classical and social liberalism. But the liberal class in a country like America these days is more like a band aid to a failing system. I don't object to being called a progressive or left-wing. (Also, rule of thumb, if TGW calls you something, you're probably not that.)
ArguingWAristotleTiffFebruary 29, 2016 at 11:44#90670 likes
This is not an explanation. It's an edgy assertion meant to piss people off.
And it works. It shuts people down, not because there are differing opinions but rather because the aggressive/rude way in which it is expressed. It's an active choice and one that has off put me to the point that I am almost always lurking, instead of participating.
Thanks, this is what I'm trying to get at. Is it just name recognition, or is there any substance to it?
My take, for what it's worth, and I realize dangers for attempting to speak for an entire community, especially one I am not a part of:
Southern African Americans are not New England socialist liberals, and they're also not west coast environmentalist liberals. They are very much like their white counterparts (and neighbors). They are capitalist, religious, and far more conservative on social issues and crime than you might believe. They do not believe generally in an expansive government, and if you sat in on a city council or county commission meeting in a predominately black area, you would not be able to distinguish their attitudes from their white counterparts.
The great division (no big surprise here) between whites and blacks relates to civil rights issues. The Democratic party has defined itself as the party that will protect those interests and for that reason blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat. If blacks could trust Republicans not to be racist, then there would be far greater support.
And this civil rights issue is very personal to the African American community. It holds (and you be the judge) that blacks in particular are denied opportunity, that the playing field is not fair, and the courts are not just. I say "in particular" because the assertion is not that Asians, Hispanics, or whomever are also similarly unfairly disadvantaged, nor is there any suggestion that the capitalistic system is generally oppressive or unfair, nor is there the belief that American ideology is failed. The belief is that they have historically been targeted and fairness must be rectified, not that the governmental ideology is fundamentally flawed.
To the extent they wish to expand the government and to create additional social security measures, it is not because the government is duty bound to produce such benefits. It's because the government has denied them equal opportunity and it needs to remedy that. The greatest threat to the black/Democrat alliance is black affluence.
In other words, it's a civil rights issue entirely. They wish to wave the flag like everyone else, but just feel that's been denied them. That is what they are fighting for: the right to full citizenship.
Maybe I'll ask everyone here too: what do you identify as politically (socially, economically, foreign-policy wise, etc)?
I am going to tentatively say that I am a left-leaning libertarian. But I don't participate often in political discussion even if I should so it's not like I would be able to offer a strong defense of my position against criticism from other angles. Bottom line for me is that as long as you don't harm me or anyone else, I don't have a problem with it (why should I?).
On Tuesday, March 1, 7:55, the reports are that the Minneapolis/St. Paul and suburban caucus sites have been jammed, with both parties extending the period of presidential preference voting, while they continue regular caucus business. No word as to who is doing better: Rubio or Trump, Sanders or Clinton. Rubio was expected to do better here than elsewhere.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 02, 2016 at 12:44#91040 likes
I physically cannot listen to Hillary's voice a minute more. Please make her stop. :s
I voted for Kasich, which really didn't matter because Trump had the Georgia vote well at hand (even though they are freakishly small and evidence of a small penis as noted by Rubio).
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 07, 2016 at 11:32#93070 likes
Woo Hoo! Thank you for the birthday wishes! 8-)
Though I must say that someone wished for me to feel my age of 46 and now? I feel 46 even though my cake said Happy 28th Birthday!
Tell me something, does it only go downhill from here but feel like climbing up hill? :s
South Korea: After 4+ hours tight play & a rapid-fire endgame, Google’s Go-playing computer system won 2nd contest against Grandmaster Lee Sedol
I just lost a bet that I made some 12 to 15 years ago with a friend. I used to be confident, back then, that we weren't very far away from the development of human level artificial intelligence (decades away at most) but that, in any case, the capacity for professional level go playing performances by computers would not be achieved before that. I now owe my friend $5.
Reply to Pierre-Normand I think it is also interesting that some computers (their programs) have learned how to play video games without being taught how. It won't go down as a towering achievement by itself, but if computers are going to be more useful (and more dangerous, of course) they have to be able to learn on their own, without someone taking great pains to lay it out one very, very small step after another.
Re: 'Go' match in Seoul, South Korea,
the following from Wired article yesterday:
At first, Fan Hui [European champ that Google's computer crushed] thought the move was rather odd. But then he saw its beauty.
“It’s not a human move. I’ve never seen a human play this move,” he says. “So beautiful.” It’s a word he keeps repeating. Beautiful. Beautiful. Beautiful.
The phrase "It's not a human move" hit me. How many potential non-human moves are ahead of us and I wonder if we will find them beautiful.
Reply to Cavacava Drumpf is such a stupid lying little worm. A walking fallacy. But the American media is even dumber than he is and let him run rings around them. (Excuse the mixed metaphors :) )
I like the idea that we will find new possibilities, new ways of proceeding; ways that we have yet to see, or that we can't see because of our own/society's' built in biases.
Well if we are in the late stages of capitalism, then consumption is/becomes the main social value No politician means what it says on the stump, the media knows this and does not care about Trump's message. It's his entertainment value that counts.
PF was historically very unreliable for some reason. You never knew when it would be up and running, when there'd be various errors, and when posts would go missing. It's probably in need of some updating. Someone else's problem...
Reply to Baden Thanks for bringing this forward. I hadn't heard anything about it.
The defenders of The American Way, Inc. didn't fold up their tents just because their opposition appeared to have won the war. Roe vs. Wade (1973) was a signal event in right-wing history, and the conservative family lobby hasn't rested since, 43 years now. It has been a long, slow struggle; they haven't won a SCOTUS repeal, or a constitutional amendment, but they have rolled back not only abortion services, but family planning services as well in many states.
And, of course, they aren't finished.
I am on record saying that gay people should not think that the matter is settled once and for all time. Some conservatives are tolerant of homosexuals -- probably have siblings or children who are homosexual -- but the hard core family-focused-clean-conservatives have not made room on the bench for homosexuals, gays, faggots, queers, abominations, etc.
There are several objects-of-reaction to fuel anger: Moslems in America; abortions; legally married homosexuals; transsexuals; trade deficits; job-killing trade pacts; invasive species; deer eating the geraniums; coyotes, wolves, and bears prowling suburban church parking lots for god's sake, etc.
I [i]would[/I] like to see him sit in cow manure and spread it all over his body. That'd be pretty funny to watch. Makes me want to have a gay marriage just so I could invite him.
Reply to Bitter Crank I see the anti-gay sentiment differently from the abortion issue. The anti-gay sentiment rests (I think) on a few biblical passages, and with waning literal acceptance of the Bible along with the fact there are all sorts of odd rules the Bible sets out, it's going to take a certain personality with a religious background to continue the fight against gays and lesbians.
On the other hand, when a fetus gains personhood is a complicated philosophical question, where even many self-professed liberals and progressives struggle with defining when abortion is acceptable. It's not something that hinges on a few biblical passages, but it's a legitimate area for debate.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 14, 2016 at 21:30#96410 likes
Okay I twisted my knee and now it feels like there is gravel under my knee cap. I did bash in right below the cap at Thanksgiving. @Mayor of Simpleton, I am in kneed of you! Oh, and guys, don't forget that it is Steak and BJ day. How do I know this? It was the first appointment on hubby's work schedule. And so help me if someone draws a correlation between the two.
Reply to Hanover That's all very true. I agree, homosexuality and abortion aren't the same kind of issue; I only brought abortion up because it illustrates how seemingly settled issues (like the privacy of reproduction issues) can eventually be ground down.
The anti-homosexuality opinion makers are vigorous, but appears to be relatively sparse compared to anti-abortion opinion holders. Then too, gay men being openly gay men--as gay men will do--desensitized people over time. (We're here, we're queer; they got used to it like we suggested they do.) Unfortunately, (from my point of view) Planned Parenthood clinics, even one's who don't do abortions, have not desensitized religious conservatives.
The control of female fertility is a major issue in any society, as is the control of females. It's well know that uncontrolled women could devastate the countryside.
Then too, gay men being openly gay men--as gay men will do--desensitized people over time. (We're here, we're queer; they got used to it like we suggested they do.) Unfortunately, (from my point of view) Planned Parenthood clinics, even one's who don't do abortions, have not desensitized religious conservatives.
This actually feeds into the conservative criticisms of the left, which is that the behavior being advocated is clearly immoral, but that it is being made acceptable by just bombarding everyone with it until it is no longer offensive.
I do think some desensitization was needed on the homosexuality issue because it does evoke a visceral reaction in some, but the real reason that it has become acceptable is that it does not violate generally accepted moral principles such as empathy, compassion, and the golden rule. In fact, its prohibition violates those rules.
On the other hand, the objections to abortion are not entirely visceral, but are based upon questions of personhood. If you are correct that abortion may one day become acceptable simply because people have grown use to it, then that would be a bad thing, and I think the right would be correct in objecting to the legalization of abortion just because it is politically incorrect to object to it.
For my part, I have spent countless hours trying to desensitize myself to lesbianism by subjecting myself to progressively more graphic images of it. I have so far not grown any less sensitive to it, but I will persevere.
The main thing I take from this is that gay Americans deserve a collective medal for the restraint and dignity they show in the face of this kind of hate. Respect.
As for desensitization, I think I've got to the point where I can read Hanover's posts without committing extreme violence against my keyboard. I don't rule out a relapse though.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 15, 2016 at 15:53#96720 likes
As for desensitization, I think I've got to the point where I can read Hanover's posts without committing extreme violence against my keyboard. I don't rule out a relapse though.. .
Hanover is our resident provocateur. 8-)
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 15, 2016 at 16:07#96730 likes
Okay Hillary is either in complete denial or she is in the early stages of Alzheimer disease.
Oh, Bless her heart.
She just said that we did not lose a single life in Libya.
Does she not remember our Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty losing their lives, waiting for her to send back up? Backup that never came?
Of course not. She would then have to admit that it wasn't about a video but it was waves of attacks because our Embassy was dealing firearms. She lied to the family members that were present to receive the remains of their children, she said she was going to make sure the guy who made the video would be held accountable, while at the same time telling HER daughter the night of the attack that it was an attack not about a video. The woman CANNOT tell the freaking truth. She is almost a pathological liar, she BELIEVES the lies she spews. How dare her lie to a fellow Mom about their child. Unforgivable.
The woman is delusional and it is sad to hear but better now than after the election.
For my part, I have spent countless hours trying to desensitize myself to lesbianism by subjecting myself to progressively more graphic images of it. I have so far not grown any less sensitive to it, but I will persevere.
Why desensitize yourself from lady on lady love? There might be a role for you if you were to ask. 8-)
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 15, 2016 at 23:11#96760 likes
Older folk than you are beginning to think very fondly of Nixon and LBJ. Very old people are looking back on Truman and Roosevelt as the truly good old days. Is anybody looking back kindly on Carter?
For my part, I have spent countless hours trying to desensitize myself to lesbianism by subjecting myself to progressively more graphic images of it. I have so far not grown any less sensitive to it, but I will persevere.
Tiff is right. There is surely a part for you to play. Perhaps you could be the butler who comes into the drawing room to deliver the silver tray of drinks, cigarettes, and dildos for the minimally clad m'lady and her lipstick or diesel dyke lesbian friend. Your costume will be a speedo tuxedo (black bikini, black leather vest, spike heels and a tool box with various thrill inducing apparatus. You would of course serve the drinks and explain and demonstrate the use of the selection of devices on the tray and in the box.
She just said that we did not lose a single life in Libya
In this case she was talking about the military action in 2011. Benghazi happened later, in 2012, so strictly speaking it wasn't a lie though it was still a gaffe considering most Americans don't separate the two. This is not a general defense of Hilary by the way. I agree with the gist of the other stuff you said about her except the part about her believing her lies. I think she is actually very very calculating just like old Bill. The only silver lining in her presidency will be its symbolism much like it was with Obama. Other than that another four years of corporatocracy.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 16, 2016 at 12:10#96930 likes
Trump has desensitized us to Cruz. In fact, I think many of us are now missing W. I can say Obama has left me fondly reminiscing about Bill Clinton.
~shudders~ I cannot stand Cruz, he just looks creepy, feels creepy and switches between overly empathetic to the 'peoples' problem and a Preacher standing in judgement of those below his podium. :s
Please, can we change the rules and have W. back again? (L)
Your costume will be a speedo tuxedo (black bikini, black leather vest, spike heels and a tool box with various thrill inducing apparatus
This is a Hanover fantasy, not a Bitter Crank fantasy, so stop with the Hanover imagery and stick to what the women might be wearing and doing. Don't get me wrong, I'd look smart in the speedo tuxedo, but butler boy dress up isn't typical of the sorts of videos I have in mind.Quoting Bitter Crank
You would of course serve the drinks and explain and demonstrate the use of the selection of devices on the tray and in the box.
I'm not so good at the serving role, but I have a real knack at being served. You think you can flip this fantasy around just a bit (and please don't bring in other half naked butler boys).
Reply to mcdoodle Kind of agree except I'd replace Nixon with Carter. In many ways, Nixon was the last liberal president - although his liberality was forced upon him by social movements. That's the only way to force change through. Get together en masse and march on the structures of power.
I look back kindly on Carter but then I'm a Brit, what do I know? I think you should all vote for Jill Stein, that's how off-message I am.
I see Carter as the worst President of my lifetime. He then was an excellent ex-President with his charitable work. Then he decided to get back into politics and offer his two cents worth on current events, and then he earned his spot as worst ex-President of my lifetime.
but the Jewish world is evil. Such is the narrative.
I always felt I was Jewish but Benkei explained that no matter how "Jewish" I may feel, I can never be Jewish. I thought all religions were open to new members. :s
My Mom's idea of the Jewish is what I entered into my own personhood with and that was that if you can, choose a Jewish Doctor as Jewish men in general, do not like to see women in pain, hence some empathy for labor/childbirth or surgery. The second idea that I took away from her was that if you want an honest CPA, look for a Jewish name, the Jewish don't mess with other people's money.
Was she right? I don't exactly know. My OB/Gyn's last name was Eckel (I choose my Doctors based on how unique their last name is) and my CPA? Well he doesn't have a name yet, I'm still counting my own pennies. :D But what I have found is that in listening to "The God Show" where a Priest and a Rabbi discuss ideas and issues at hand is that the Rabbi has a sense of humor towards life that I appreciate. Dry humor I think is what it is called ;)
I'm 25 and I can't commit myself to having a relationship with a woman even though I want to...
I'm afraid of sex? Something about it [s]seems[/s] is violent and savage, contrary to my notion/conception of myself...
My father was a weird one and I have a vivid memory of him acting as a gynecologist on my sibling even though he isn't one.
Don't know where to go from here or even should I try and open such a can of worms.
Ehh... If anything the memories are either suppressed, I'm making shit up for attention, and sedatives wiped the memories. It can also be a combination of all three. I just don't know. All I do know at the present time is to keep on functioning, dysfunctionally.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 17, 2016 at 12:30#97540 likes
If anything the memories are either suppressed, I'm making shit up for attention, and sedatives wiped the memories. It can also be a combination of all three. I just don't know. All I do know at the present time is to keep on functioning, dysfunctionally.
Suppression is a natural tool our body uses to shield our psyche from memories we cannot mentally deal with. I doubt you are making shit up for attention but you are sharing your questions of where the scenario above could have come from. My experience with sedatives is that they can suppress memories, thoughts or feelings but "wiping them" out? I have never had that happen.
A combination of the three? Maybe? Likely? I would guess there is a combination but of two or three I don't know. I am not going to pretend to know your story, your feelings but I can and do relate to your questioning your feelings.
I have a 3.5 - 4 yr loss of memory in my childhood. The age is from 4 yrs old to 8 yrs old. No memories, no pictures, no report cards, nothing. I had only three memories from that time period and those were traumatic, sickening to think about, life and death scenarios. I asked my Mom about it since it was her second husband this time loss happened with and she said she has just blocked it out. I asked my Grandfather before he died and he said you need to ask your Mother. No one could give me any info.
I wanted to know what my life experience was during that time, I wanted to know why I reacted the way I did to some events in life, so I sought therapy. The Dr. and I worked thru the three traumatic events that I did remember, that I came to deal with. Then I wanted to know more about that time period and so we tried regressive therapy and even though I have been able to compartmentalize what had happened, I could not remember anything but those three events. I asked if we could do therapy with medication to bring those memories back and he asked me why? What good would come from it? I said that I would KNOW and he suggested that if my psyche had blocked it to the point we had reached, why taunt it? What positive impact would it have on my life because chances are they would NOT be good memories? I had no good answer for him and decided to leave it there. He assured me that if my psyche felt like I could handle the recall of a memory, I would be the first to know and we could take it from there.
I still wonder some 20 yrs post therapy about the "What if's?" I question my reactions sometimes and wonder what happened during that time frame in my life and maybe that is what is causing my reaction to a given situation but I just move on.
Sorry for going on about my experience but I just want you to know that you are not alone in any aspect of what you are encountering, that there are people here who care and you should feel safe in talking to us.
I feel you. I'm at that Nietzsche'ian point, where I think "Does it matter(?)" "What's so great about truth"? As some reincarnated past philosopher that I am, I want to KNOW. There is something dark lurking in the shadows; but, I can't really grasp it. Not yet at least. These questions only began to arise recently. I know my father has psychopathic traits that he unleashed on me. But, I never felt so strong in my life. My father did something to me, and in some perverted or weird way I like it. I only have a strong resentment to my mother for being so blind and I have confronted her if this was willingly so she could live with all the amenities provided by the breadwinner, which infuriates me.
I feel different from people around me. I had a mental breakdown when I was 15-16, and then diagnosed as a schizophrenic. I've never heard voices or seen things that aren't there. I am however constantly preoccupied with my sanity and avoid any sort of situation (especially after my short stint with the military) that would endanger my psyche again. As a precautionary measure I take an antipsychotic and an SSRI, which have been a godsend to me as I hate any sort of emotions (both positive and negative).
After trying college and the military I feel like my life is complete and could die at peace. I don't really ponder about suicide; but, it always is a comforting option to me. There really aren't any deterrents preventing me from committing suicide; but, the only thing I want to do is bring goodness into this god-forsaken world. I am currently working on a plant additive (plant growth enhancer) that people could benefit from (farmers, ordinary folk, pot growers). Yields of plants should at the minimum increase by 2, which would be an amazing gift to humanity. Delusions of grandeur? Maybe; but, who cares?
I really appreciate your kind heartedness Tiff. Is Greg still around here? I hope he is OK and would like to chat with him as he's been through this an emerged as a great person.
I feel very torn between wanting to be an Anglo Saxon pagan and an erudite Jew (I have nothing against adult circumcision -- I just don't want to be there when it happens.). What is the preferred treatment for this malady?
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 17, 2016 at 19:08#97710 likes
I feel very torn between wanting to be an Anglo Saxon pagan and an erudite Jew (I have nothing against adult circumcision -- I just don't want to be there when it happens.). What is the preferred treatment for this malady?
Finally!!! Someone who feels the same pain of not being allowed to be Jewish no matter how much I might want to. I don't feel so alone anymore.
However about that "adult circumcision" thing? You are in that for yourself. ;) After childbirth? I would be waiting on a time machine and nothing less.
Finally!!! Someone who feels the same pain of not being allowed to be Jewish no matter how much I might want to.
You can convert to judaism. And, you don't have to get circumcised (because you don't have a dick). Of course, if you really want to be circumcised... you could become a male through hormones and reconstruction surgery. Then you could take your newly minted member to a mohel who would slice off the end for you. You could arrange with the surgeon (of your reconstruction) to have it nerve-free so you wouldn't feel a thing. As a matter of fact, you could have the mohel be part of the surgery team, and they could leave a little extra skin on the end as they finish things up, and then he could cut that off, like one snips off a hanging thread. Less chance of infection that way then having your new dick rot off (always a bummer). Recently they began doing penis transplants for soldiers who had their favorite organ blown off in war in the middle east. It seems to work. That would be another route. Arrange to have a pre-circumcized Jewish dick transplanted, then you'd be good to go.
You might not make it into Ultra Orthodox Judaism, but you probably don't want to do that anyway.
I know a female to male transsexual who became Orthodox. This was back in the late 1970s, early 1980s. However, she (later he) was a non-religious Jew to start out with.
You would be required to subscribe to the appropriate Israeli newspaper (depending on which variety of Judaism you elected), develop a New York Jewish accent, eat lots of pastrami, bagels, and matzo ball soup, blintzes, and latkes. None of that involves suffering unless you are a vegetarian. It would be helpful to learn something about Judaism and be able to locate New York and Israel on a map.
You should start using shlemiel, mentsh, schlock, tuches, mishegas (lots of that going around) kvetsh, chutzpah (something I suspect you already have), shmendrik, glitch, shlep, and many other such words. If you study hard, you'll cease being taken for a shiksa and become a yiddisher kop, perhaps.
Once you become officially Jewish, we'll confirm your new status by coming down to Arizona and spraying swastikas on your house. BTW, there aren't any Jewish ranchers. Just doesn't happen. You'll have to sell the farm and move to Manhattan. Oi vey!
In, out, up down. Let's call the whole thing in between.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 20, 2016 at 01:33#98590 likes
~sighs~ It's 90* in the shade and it's not even April... It's going to be a long hot fire season around these parts and those North of us. We have taken on another Equine boarder which is awesome! He is a Vann Gypsy Stallion and less than a year old! He is growing right before my eyes~
The idea of what would be better than owning a boat? Is having a best friend who owns a boat, applies to Equine as well. 8-)
This is a picture from the Net. I'll take a picture of him soon!
It's starting to look like we should change our name to The Politics Forum.
I also wish there would be interest for a broader range of topics, but lets hope it's a temporary lull. Maybe the current American primaries mobilise too much attention.
Reply to Michael I prefer this fad to the previous fad - which I'm reluctant to mention, lest it comes back with a vengeance. You know, the one that rhymes with shmanti-shmatalism. Or, more broadly, shmessimism.
Mayor of SimpletonMarch 22, 2016 at 21:51#99770 likes
Not that it really matters, but I'll be taking more of a break from things.
I'm not really having a crisis or some existential whatever. There have simply been a good number of things that have basically made me rather depressed and I feel that I just have to stop for a bit.
I'll be here from time to time, but I need a break.
Meow!
GREG
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 22, 2016 at 22:14#99800 likes
Reply to Mayor of SimpletonIt matters. YOU matter a LOT to me and others here in the 'thinkers' sandbox. What is it that has you depressed? Dear Brother, I too turn inward, withdraw from interactions, when I am depressed but I also know that it doesn't always solve the 'everything' we are dealing with. So when the time is right, come back on the boards and know that you can reach out privately to a great deal of the members here as well as myself.
Be Well Be Positive Live Life and Lavish Laughter over the absurd people and part of life.
See you soon,
Your lil' sister (L)
Reply to Mayor of Simpleton Sorry you are feeling down. Pet your cats for me...I love cats, but am severely allergic to them (that's a fun little story involving a trip to the ER).
Mayor of SimpletonMarch 22, 2016 at 23:08#99910 likes
Between my probable need of a petty elbow operation to end my baseball season before it begins (maybe my career, because I'm considered to be too old again), the refugee crisis I tried to help out with that seems like spitting on a forrest fire, the frightening USA elections of hatred, fear & stupidity and now today... my cyclist being threatened by some idiot probably pretending to be somehow connected to ISIS while training on his rollers in the parking lot of his hotel in Brussels where he has a race tomorrow, after his flight was cancelled in Frankfurt and he drove a rental car 7 hours to get to the damned event, just to find that no one takes this threat seriously (for fucks sake he rides for Tinkoff in the World Tour, that's a legit target, but hey... whatever)...
... things are just peachy.
I'm really beginning to become a serious misanthrope.
Reply to Mayor of Simpleton
Talking it out usually helps. The initial reaction from my poor understanding of psychology is to hold the issues within and hope they go away. Not saying that you have issues, just that there are external factors, as you've listed, bothering you and rationalizing what to do about it here is just about the best thing in my humble opinion one can do...
So, no one has picked up the baton from me in arguing against Agustino's anti-homosexual narrative and Victorian morality? I wonder why. (Too far off topic? Not worth the bother? Just don't feel like it? Better things to do? Let sleeping dogs lie? Some or all of the above?)
Bleh... I have no interest in giving him attention... his theological anachronistic puritanical teleology strains the eyes. I think that philosophy of the deed is definitely favorable.
Bleh... I have no interest in giving him attention... his theological anachronistic puritanical teleology strains the eyes. I think that philosophy of the deed is definitely favorable.
Alright. You get the sticks and I'll get the stones. :D
TheWillowOfDarknessMarch 31, 2016 at 00:20#102830 likes
Reply to Sapientia I was going to, but then I got rather busy and haven't had the time to go through and take apart everything. In a few weeks I might have time. The tricky thing is that, for Augustino, gay rights is acting as a proxy for everything he percives to be wrong with Western society and its obliteration of traditional values. It's going to be quite difficult to get through to him that traditional values (the devaluing of gay people) are the problem here and need to be abandoned insofar as gay people are concerned.
Of course, this will leave all those traditionalists who see their politics as tied to the hatred of gay people without a poltical option. But then that's sort of the point: to remove the hatred of gay people from culture.
TheWillowOfDarknessMarch 31, 2016 at 00:32#102840 likes
Reply to Baden You'll hit a snag when you discover everyone connected to the plane had a mother named "Martha."
If every time an antinatalist pointed out suffering, they had to point out joy, would their arguments be less persuasive? I think they're often guilty of cherry picking.
Reply to Baden And I would agree. Also, creating a false dilemma can be added to the list: live a shitty life or don't live at all.
ArguingWAristotleTiffApril 04, 2016 at 12:45#104920 likes
I think that most of the folks here know that I am a recovering addict of Opiates, that I was prescribed for pain control, as a result of a serious injury. After being on OxyContin for 2.5 years, I sought out an Addiction/Pain management Doctor, to help me get off the OxyContin. After being in his care for 2.5 years, I was Opiate free, the Dragon was slayed and that is where he will continue to lay, beaten but never dead. I am FULLY aware of this and do EVERYTHING in my power (short of stamping it on my forehead) to let any Doctor or Dentist know that under no circumstances should ANY form of an Opiate be given to me, ever. I have asked my spouse, kids, parents and friends to PLEASE, if I am not able to speak for myself, DO NOT let them give me any form of Opiates. I am honest on any medical form when it comes to checking the box for Chemical dependencies and have gone so far as to write down that I am allergic to Opiates just so no 'mistake' is made.
Now as I approach 6 years of sobriety this Father's day, I am stunned and feeling unfairly judged by the Medical community. I went in to see my Doctor's Nurse Practioner, that I have been seeing for the last 10 years and another NP was on duty and saw me for my 6 month check up and medication refills. Same meds, same doses for the past 6 years and she said that she would refill one Benzo and not another. I looked at her quizzically and asked why? She said that she didn't feel comfortable in refilling the prescriptions that haven't changed, not increased, nothing, stable as fuck and I was taken aback. I said why not? She said she would leave a note for the NP that I normally see, take my kids and spouse to see, and if SHE is comfortable refilling the other Benzo, she will call the Pharmacy. I was surprised, a bit confuzzled but said sure, okay. Then she asks me which med I want to have refilled, which was a really odd question coming from a NP, not really a choice the patient should be making but okay, so I choose the one that I am almost out of. As she is typing the refills into the computer, she turns and asks me if I am still on Suboxone (med used to get off of Oxy). It has been 5 years since I had been on it and had to think back and I said, um no, I have not been on Suboxone for 5 yrs and the question felt...odd. It felt odd that she wouldn't refill my regular/stable meds but was asking about something so far back in my history. She told me that my regular NP would get the note on Monday and I thanked her for her time and the appointment was over.
I tried to figure out in my mind what exactly was making me feel odd about the appointment and just went on with my day. It wasn't until I was telling Heath about it verbally, hearing myself recount what happened, that I realized she had profiled me. I was speechless and then the more it sunk in, the more worked up I got about it. Not necessarily about this NP in particular but the idea that overcoming addiction of Opiates should ever be something to feel shamed about, as though I was tainted or untrustworthy.
I have no intention of letting this one person's opinion lead me back or weaker to the Dragon I slayed but I have to admit, what she did impacted me. She somehow took a part of my pride in getting off a very addictive, life changing, mind numbing, emotion killing drug that stole 2.5 years of my life.
I don't feel comfortable in telling my regular NP about my experience, even though I should and would over any other topic but this one is so close to my core, that I am afraid of being judged again.
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Don't take it personally, Tiff. This person does not know you. On the larger issue, I find it hard to relate to the U.S. prescription drug culture. Seems like a fairly straightforward money making scam to me.
Yeah, I watch game of thrones, I never thought about where I would be living in such a universe though, definitely would be just a hermit that desperately hides from and evades all human contact. The people in that universe are just awful, awful people.
Or plan B, I would set my life's goal as owning a Dragon Skin wardrobe.
Reply to darthbarracuda I tried giving them a shot, got about a third of the way through the first one before I put it down. I really don't think the books are any better, but then again I have a grudge against his style of writing, which is a kind of standardized style that's indistinguishable from most mass-marketed books.
I get how people can be entertained by them, but when I want to be entertained, I just watch the show, which is a medium that's more entertaining anyway. I just feel like, if I'm going to invest so much time in reading such a long series of novels, I'd rather read something of more artistic value. Maybe I'm an elitest asshole, but I don't think I am, because I like being entertained as much as the next person.
Reply to Wosret Yeah I'm with you, I'd probably be a hermit. Especially seeing as I try to be a hermit in our universe, where I don't think people are any better.
Reply to Baden The drug thing did get out of control for a while over here, with these pill clinics popping up all over the place. The federal government started cracking down, actually doing frequency tracking on certain doctors at certain pharmacies, looking for statistical anomalies. There were some pharmacies that were making the bulk of their money on pain pills from certain doctors.
The news would run stories showing lines of cars waiting at the clinics in the morning to open up so the people could get their fix. That has settled down, and I don't think it's like it once was, although there's obviously money in drugs: legal and illegal.
Reply to darthbarracuda Yes, I'm a fan of Game of Thrones. I've not read the books. I've already joined the Night's Watch. Well, a gaming community with it's namesake. :D
Reply to Wosret I watched that some time ago. Good stuff. Shame there's only one season available. I quickly got through it, and then I forgot about it until you just mentioned it.
Reply to Sapientia Is Vikings any good? I don't have cable television or anything like that, but I have seen the first episode online somewhere and I thought it was okay.
I have been meaning to watch The Walking Dead as well. Have you played The Last of Us by chance?
Also, Matthew McConaughey nails his role in True Detective. Absolutely stunning first season.
I don't actually watch very much television. I had heard of sense8 a few times, but then again just a few days ago, so have been watching it. Two episodes to go. Last show I watched was Transparent, which wasn't too bad either.
Reply to darthbarracuda Yeh, Vikings is okay. Good even. The Walking Dead, on the other hand, is great. Highly recommend it. Fear The Walking Dead, too, which is a prequel. And yes, I played and completed The Last of Us, as well as the DLC Left Behind. Very good game with a good story. Glad I bought it. Maybe I'll check out True Detective. And, @Wosret, I don't know much about Transparent either. Looks kinda intriguing. Maybe I'll check that out, too.
I also played last of us, and the dlc. I also saw true detective, it was quite good for the most part, until they were doing the police stuff, which was unbelievable. The interpersonal stuff was engaging though.
Reply to Wosret That brings up lots and lots of Bob Johnsons and similar names in the search results. Too much to sift through. But you have mine if you want to add me at some point.
I forgot Fallout 4 when I moved, a long with a few other things... I had beaten it, but other content is sure to come out for it, so I'll likely have to buy it again...
I wonder what some good ps4 games are, kind of sick of Elder Scrolls Online...
I wonder what some good ps4 games are, kind of sick of Elder Scrolls Online...
Rainbow Six: Siege is the best game I've played in a while. The Division is all the rage right now. I played the Beta and thought it was alright, but perhaps a bit overrated.
I wonder what some good ps4 games are, kind of sick of Elder Scrolls Online...
Borderlands 2. I've been playing it on the PS3 but there's a PS4 version. The Tiny Tina's Assault on Dragon Keep DLC (don't do until you complete the main story) is amazeballs, as is the DLC character Krieg.
Reply to Hanover It's a source of entertainment, just like TV, or whichever sport you follow, which I probably find a bore. Over here, the big thing is the overrated yawn-fest we call football.
What I don't get is how it's often the same people who value film culture that don't see the value in game culture, when many games are much like an interactive film in which you're the lead role. Much like life, actually. We've come a long way since Pong.
Reply to Sapientia Despite being a big gaming fan when I was younger, I kind of agree with @Hanover on this one. Gaming seems to me to be a path away from rather than towards any useful engagement with life. I leave open the possibility that I'm just a stuffy killjoy though. It's easy, admittedly, to criticize stuff you're not into.
My 18 year old son sits at his computer and talks into some headpiece into the wee hours of the night killing something or another. When I tell him to come up to eat, he tells me that he's invested too much time to just walk away and leave what he's accomplished. I then tell him I'm going to unplug everything from everywhere until he relents and comes to eat, like I should care if he eats.
My guess is that episode plays itself out throughout the world in one or another every day.
Reply to Hanover So you judge the entire gaming culture based on its excessive elements? That doesn't seem fair. If we apply that standard across the board, then that would have damning results for many other recreational activities as well. So, to be consistent, lets also denounce drinking, television, music, the internet, mobile phones, etc.. In short, lets all live like the Amish.
Reply to Baden Yeh, it's not so much that you're being a killjoy, but that you're being a selective killjoy.
ArguingWAristotleTiffApril 11, 2016 at 17:59#109010 likes
ArguingWAristotleTiffApril 11, 2016 at 18:01#109030 likes
Is there anyway to encourage grown men to aim better while using the restroom? (N) Any secret code? I do hope you all do better in public than you do at home. :-O
ArguingWAristotleTiffApril 11, 2016 at 18:04#109050 likes
Reply to Sapientia Would you like to become a Mormon? I have one in mind that I could put you in touch with. Just trying to cover any point spread I might encounter after I cease living. ;)
ArguingWAristotleTiffApril 11, 2016 at 18:05#109060 likes
There are a couple of Mormons here at my office, each with five children apiece. I must say that they are incredibly conscientious, hard-working, clean cut, and concerned about their fellow man. They do have a rather crazy set of beliefs, though, proving that the utility of a belief system bears no relationship to the truth of the belief system. This odd fact offers I suppose the best basis for a faith based belief system as any, but it would require you turn your brain off from time to time, which is more unpalatable to some than others.
It's a simple environmental intervention that works well. But this wasn't a problem in the past. Like before we put toilets in small rooms in the house. A return to male outdoor urinating would solve the problem. We would like that because it helps us feel one-with-nature.
I'm not nearly as into video games as I used to be, I'm pretty difficult to impress, and not much good tv, movies, or video games come out. Most of it is shit. If you're not old as shit though, everybody plays video games, and it's one of those fall back topics, or activities to do with people you have zero in common with. Though I bought a headset for Elder Scrolls Online, I haven't used it. I don't like having to talk to people unless it's absolutely necessary.
I've gotten in trouble a few times for pissing in people's yards. I flashed one woman that walked around the corner, but she was cool with it, but had a nurse flip her shit about it, run out and started freaking right out. Good times.
It's certainly no skyrim. It's really a generic MMO, and not hugely fun. Maps make it possible though to just completely ignore everything everyone tells me, and have no idea what the fuck I'm doing there, or getting, and just following the map to the thing, and then to the next place without having to spend a second listening to anyone's bullshit. Puzzles are even so easy that they're still faster to solve without bothering to read how.
I am like 2 levels away from max level, but it's basically the exact some shit every zone.
Though I bought a headset for Elder Scrolls Online, I haven't used it. I don't like having to talk to people unless it's absolutely necessary.
Ha. I was like that when I first bought my headset, and am still often like that now, at least when playing with strangers. When playing with strangers, it stays on mute.
Reply to Baden What else is there to do in the evening after work? It's no worse (and perhaps better) than watching TV, and more entertaining (for some) than reading.
Reply to Michael Don't watch TV (never owned one) or movies or lately read much. I'm more into news/current affairs/documentaries/podcasts etc. Not sure how useful that is either. And I don't really have a coherent rationale for my aversion to gaming/watching movies/TV*. Just a few thoughts wrapped around a gut feeling. Anyway, I'm not going to criticize anyone else's choices. To each his poison.
(*Although I did try once in an old PF thread I started, "Is watching TV unethical?" or something along those lines.)
I was thinking that with all this talk about hobbies and distractions and the like that maybe we should start a softball team. We could play PF in the philosophy championship. There's a ball field just down the street from my house that I think I could reserve if anyone is interested. We can talk about the logistics of making this happen later, but I don't anticipate any issues. Let me know if you're in and what position you'd like to play. I hear that Mayor is an excellent pitcher, but I think we'll play slow pitch.
Other than a hearty diet of porn and horror movies, I pretty much keep to myself.
Horror video games are like horror films, but can be better in various ways. For example, they're usually longer and more intense. Soma, Outlast, Condemned and Dead Space are prime examples. I recommend watching the trailers to give you a taste of what you're missing out on.
Reply to Sapientia I nominate Reply to schopenhauer1 as PF's team cheerleader. I believe he is the best suited for this role, although if you really want this position I'm sure he'll understand.
Horror movies! They're for girls! They more often than not have female protagonists, and the classics are about how only the sluts and minorities die. Only pretty virgin Christian girls make it to the end. Most of it involves running, hiding and screaming... They're inverted action movies. One awesome deadly antagonist, usually with super powers, that can shrug of mortal wounds, and numerous fodder, a group of associates for them to pick off one by one, or sometimes in a slaughtering rampage. In an action movie, it's about one awesome deadly protagonist often with super powers, that can shrug off fatal wounds as mere "flesh wounds", and picks off a group of associates one by one, or sometimes in a slaughtering rampage... and totally gets laid by the end. Minorities still get fucked though, often the whole group of associates they're slaying are non-whites.
Minorities are in the movie to stand in place of the Great White Goddess [GWG] and take the fucking for her. If the GWG was going to get fucked herself, there wouldn't be any need for minorities in the movies at all. There would just be big, hulking dark monsters with big dicks and long tails relentlessly tracking the scent (Chanel #5) of the gorgeous blond GWG (usually the daughter or wife of the scientist who pissed off the monster in the first place). Of course it could be angry, jealous, female monsters with long tails and big ovipositors with which they would impregnate the gorgeous GWG, planting their eggs, and then glue her to the wall to wait for the hatching to begin (like in the second or third ALIEN movie). Once hatched, the mini little monsters would crawl around inside the GWG and devour her from within. She would, of course, remain alive until the maggot monsters reached the heart or brain.
You wouldn't want all of that to happen to the gorgeous blond GWG when it could conveniently happen to some swarthy minorities, would you?
I definitely wouldn't want to be alien mouth raped and then give violent chest birth to its rape babies. But as a social justice warrior, I will have to bare that burden... you know... figuratively.
Minorities still get fucked though, often the whole group of associates they're slaying are non-whites.
As if horror movies are a representation of the horrors of actual society. Is there anything left for me to do without someone trying to turn it into a political statement? I just want to watch my horror flicks in mindless peace. Can I just have that?
Reply to Wosret Our first practice is tomorrow night at the field near my house. I'll bring the beer and syringes. Yeah, it's a dark sort of team, with some really troublesome vices, but I think we ought to do alright.
If everyone could do me the favor of repeating everything you've said over the past few minutes. My cat just meowed and I might not have been able to hear you.
What exactly is softball anyway? Easy version of baseball, I presume. (I know, Google it...)
It's sort of like soccer, except instead of kicking a ball into a goal, you have a person throw a large ball underhanded at a batter who attempts to strike it with a bat and then he runs the bases if he hits it. The other similarity with soccer is that in both you can't use your hands except in softball you can.
I know this is way off-topic, but for the love of god, people: "its" is for the possessive. "It's" is a contraction of "it is." I give non-native English speakers a bit of a pass on this, but you're from the American Midwest, where English is the lingua franca (sort of). >:o
I've been guilty of this for a long time, and have only recently realised. And I'm from England of all places...
Sometimes people use each others' bodies just for fun. Kantian protestations aside, there's nothing wrong with that, in my opinion, provided both partners are willing.
That is wrong, because it means they are not respecting each other's bodies for what they are meant to be. It does not give full dignity to the other human being OR to yourself. The fact that you think otherwise does not change this objective fact.
Couldn't help but grin when I saw him refer to that as an objective fact.
There simply is not evidence that women were mis-treated historically. There are no documents, no writtings to justify such a view. In all of history, until the 19th century, no one complained about the role of women.
Wow. Please excuse me while I pick my jaw up off floor.
Yep. The feminisation of men is bad as it is an attack on man's nature. And women are "weak and frail" only in comparison to the physical strength of men, not in a way that is morally detrimental, the way you seem to take it. Women are morally equal to men. Not biologically though. Biologically they are different, and generally men have stronger physical strength than women do. This of course does not mean that women are morally inferior to men. Nor does it mean they are inferior biologically, because women can do a lot of things that men are typically unable to do well. They are just different, and these differences must be respected, instead of crushed. (and no, recognising such objective facts is not being "judgemental" - it's simply looking at what there is).
Couldn't help but grin when I saw him refer to that as an objective fact.
Well ... it is one Sapientia. Do you want to argue it isn't? Please then, be my guest and prove your point :) I have illustrated by argument why it is objective. I have given 3 arguments in that thread!
Yep. The feminisation of men is bad as it is an attack on man's nature. And women are "weak and frail" only in comparison to the physical strength of men, not in a way that is morally detrimental, the way you seem to take it. Women are morally equal to men. Not biologically though. Biologically they are different, and generally men have stronger physical strength than women do. This of course does not mean that women are morally inferior to men. Nor does it mean they are inferior biologically, because women can do a lot of things that men are typically unable to do well. They are just different, and these differences must be respected, instead of crushed. (and no, recognising such objective facts is not being "judgemental" - it's simply looking at what there is).
Right... so, the fact that modern Western society generally no longer accepts certain traditional conceptions of 'male virtue', has rendered modern men physically weak? What a bizarre thing to say. Fitness culture has exploded in modern times, and outdated notions of gender roles didn't just go out of out of fashion decades ago, they've actually become offensive, and anyone that espouses such views is rightly judged as backwards-thinking, narrow-minded, and loses credibility and respect.
I think there's a grain of truth in what @Agustino has been saying about the feminization of men. He has noticed something that is real, but gets his interpretion wrong. What I think may have happened is that virtues or attributes considered to be traditionally masculine are now less valued.
Traditionally masculine attributes are self-control, courage, assertiveness, and independence. I think these are good things, but I don't believe they belong only to men.
As if the saying "I couldn't care any less" versus "I could care less" error occurs more in America than Canada. The imaginary line dividing our frozen tundra from yours hardly limits the flow of misinformation.
Reply to jamalrob Yes, there is a teeny, weeny, little, minute, insignificant grain of truth amongst all the claptrap. It's evident that conquest isn't valued as widely in modern Western society as it was historically, for example.
Reply to Sapientia It seems to me that the traits or virtues I mentioned are far less valued in Western culture too, and even sometimes held in contempt or suspicion.
In fact, I'd argue that young men should be gay in the sense that they shouldn't be interested in women, but rather in their own development until a certain age.
Reply to jamalrob It doesn't seem that way to me regarding each and every one of those traits enough to make that generalisation. Independence, for example. I can think of counterexamples. Independence among women in modern Western society seems to be more widely valued now than ever before, and the trend seems to be growing. Also, a more independent lifestyle, as in, for example, the lifestyle of the bachelor, is more widely accepted, and less widely frowned upon than it has been historically. It's seen as less fundamental to get married and have children as it once was. It's now viewed in a more liberal and less conservative way. Individualism has evidently increased drastically in many ways throughout history, e.g. over the last hundred years.
Fitness culture has exploded in modern times, and outdated notions of gender roles didn't just go out of out of fashion decades ago, they've actually become offensive, and anyone that espouses such views is rightly judged as backwards-thinking, narrow-minded, and loses credibility and respect.
Fitness culture has actually produced people with big muscles, but very weak. If you look historically, men were not as bulky as they are now. Julius Caesar didn't look like Hulk. The thing is, because of the proteins they take and so forth, people taking part in fitness culture just look good, but don't actually have the strength to match it. A skinny martial artist can easily prove how strong these guys really are.
The fact you don't respect other thinking regarding gender roles, and seek to impose yourself through social oppression, marginalisation and exclusion, THAT is precisely the EVIL I am talking about. You are afraid to defend your values rationally, and have instead resorted to force. You even admit to it.
Face-head. Way to have a face on your head, you goddamn face-head! I bet you wear shirts and touch doorknobs!
Right. You merely prove my point that you want to oppress people who think differently. You want to drive them out of your community because you're afraid of them.
Right. Don't quote out of context please. You should at least have the intellectual decency to do this. I can understand you have no arguments, and protest nevertheless, but at least be honest.
Right. Don't quote out of context please. You should at least have the intellectual decency to do this. I can understand you have no arguments, and protest nevertheless, but at least be honest.
Explain how you think the context can salvage your comment. However you try to wriggle out of it, to not be interested in women, and to instead be interested in self-development until a certain age, is not gay in any acceptable sense of the word.
If you mean the sexual attraction to members of one's own gender, then that's fine. If you mean lighthearted and carefree, then that's also fine, although a little outdated. But the way that you used it is inappropriate.
And if I cared enough to argue against you, at least with the effort you seem to expect of me, then I wouldn't be posting in the Shoutbox.
Also, a more independent lifestyle, as in, for example, the lifestyle of the bachelor, is more widely accepted, and less widely frowned upon than it has been historically. It's seen as less fundamental to get married and have children as it once was. It's now viewed in a more liberal and less conservative way.
This is not individualism Sapientia, but rather lack of community spirit, and selfishness. There's a difference between the two :) .
Explain how you think the context can salvage your comment. However you try to wriggle out of it, to not be interested in women, and to instead be interested in self-development until a certain age, is not gay in any acceptable sense of the word.
If you mean the sexual attraction to members of one's own gender, then that's fine. If you mean lighthearted and carefree, then that's also fine, although a little outdated. But the way that you used it is inappropriate.
Why do you think Plato valued homosexual love more than heterosexual love in the Symposium? Remember that Socrates did not have sex with Alcibiades, but rather educated him - that was the love that was valued.
Right... so, the fact that modern Western society generally no longer accepts certain traditional conceptions of 'male virtue', has rendered modern men physically weak? What a bizarre thing to say. Fitness culture has exploded in modern times, and outdated notions of gender roles didn't just go out of out of fashion decades ago, they've actually become offensive, and anyone that espouses such views is rightly judged as backwards-thinking, narrow-minded, and loses credibility and respect.
What has rightly changed is the freedom to choose how to live your life. If you are not interested behaving in a traditionally male or female role, you don't have to, regardless of your biology. If you can find friends and significant others who share your views, then you can live happily ever after, as you should. On the other hand, there's no reason for a woman to apologize or feel ashamed for wanting to assume a very traditional female role or a male for assuming a traditional male role. It's a matter of preference. If man goes to work and does manly things while woman stays home and cooks brownies and keeps the house, I can't really see why I should be offended.
I also think there's a role for manliness and womanliness in their traditional sense in society, and there will be something lost if it becomes some unspoken requirement that men or women act in a specific politically correct way. If we're going to live by the principle of to each his (or her) own, it's got to apply both ways, meaning I can no more condemn a man for his femininity than you can condemn a man for his masculinity, even should you find it backwards-thinking, narrow minded, and lacking in credibility.
Reply to Agustino How does the answer to that question explain why your use of "gay" is acceptable? Can you skip to that part, please? Because it fails to distinguish between homosexuality, asexuality or even heterosexuality. One could be of any sexual orientation under the circumstances you describe. So it's not a characteristic or side effect that is exclusive to homosexuality. It'd be gay if there was a sexual attraction to members of the same sex. End of.
Right, thanks for admitting once again that you are not interested in argument, but rather in using peer pressure to impose your radical views :) .
I'm not uninterested in argument in general. I just don't care enough to rigorously argue against your claptrap. Forgive me for wishing to spend my time more wisely. Sometimes it's just not worth the bother.
And I'm the one with radical views here? Was that part of the joke? (Is that a smiling emoticon? I can barely make out its expression).
As an aside, the shoutbox here has become an interesting place, sort of like the late night living room when I was in college, where everyone just sort of argued about anything and everything on their mind until they got too tired or drunk and went to sleep. We'd often chart out how the topics just sort of changed over the night, often with long lulls of nothingness.
It's different from the one at PF because here you can go on an on and aren't limited to just a few lines.
Maybe it's a good thing, maybe not. I don't know. For someone who logs in daily, it's good because I can keep up with where the conversation is, but for an occasional poster, it might be a bit helter skelter. But I digress... Back to the "men should be men and women should be women" debate.
How does the answer to that question explain why your use of "gay" is acceptable? Can you skip to that part, please? Because it fails to distinguish between homosexuality, asexuality or even heterosexuality. One could be of any sexual orientation under the circumstances you describe. So it's not a characteristic or side effect that is exclusive to homosexuality. It'd be gay if there was a sexual attraction to members of the same sex. End of.
Because it involves spending time with men as opposed to women if you are a man. In that sense, it is gay, because one is attracted to spend ones times solely (or mostly) with men (hence thereby necessitating that the sexual needs (which DONT mean having sex necessarily) are satisfied by other men)
I'm not uninterested in argument in general. I just don't care enough to rigorously argue against your claptrap. Forgive me for wishing to spend my time more wisely. Sometimes it's just not worth the bother.
Yes I understand. You don't want to argue on this issue, for the simple reason that you don't have an argument. Instead, you just want to throw dirt at it and discredit it. That, for sure, you want to do :)
Traditionally masculine attributes are self-control, courage, assertiveness, and independence. I think these are good things, but I don't believe they belong only to men.
I would add a few more: confidence, self-belief, justice, loyalty. The feminine virtues on the other hand are along the lines of love, compassion, kindness, forgiveness, etc. And I too don't believe they belong exclusively to man (or that the feminine virtues belong exclusively to women), I simply believe that generally they are exemplified to a higher degree in men (or WERE, historically).
Note, that contra @Sapientia, independence in the sense he understands it has never been a male virtue. It has never been a male virtue to be a bachelor, to be a playboy, etc. This was a vice, and it was called incontinence among other names (so I don't know from what hat @Sapientia pulls these stories - it's historically inauthentic). What was a virtue was, as you call it, independence in the sense of not depending on family, friends etc. for sustenance, and yes, even for sex. That is what independence means. On the contrary, promiscuous sexuality is a form of enslavement, always needing another, being fundamentally needy - it is not a sign of maturity and strength, but rather weakness and servility.
What has rightly changed is the freedom to choose how to live your life. If you are not interested behaving in a traditionally male or female role, you don't have to, regardless of your biology. If you can find friends and significant others who share your views, then you can live happily ever after, as you should. On the other hand, there's no reason for a woman to apologize or feel ashamed for wanting to assume a very traditional female role or a male for assuming a traditional male role. It's a matter of preference. If man goes to work and does manly things while woman stays home and cooks brownies and keeps the house, I can't really see why I should be offended.
Yes this is correct. However, the problem isn't at the individual level. The problem isn't that individual X who is a man has become effeminate (for society at least). The problem occurs when this becomes a social NORM, and that's what I claim has happened. I believe people should be allowed to choose how to live their lives, so long as dangerous and harmful ways of living do not become social norms, imposed by social mechanisms of peer pressure, etc.
In other words, a balance needs to be maintained between individual liberties, and social harmony/stability.
What has rightly changed is the freedom to choose how to live your life. If you are not interested behaving in a traditionally male or female role, you don't have to, regardless of your biology. If you can find friends and significant others who share your views, then you can live happily ever after, as you should. On the other hand, there's no reason for a woman to apologize or feel ashamed for wanting to assume a very traditional female role or a male for assuming a traditional male role. It's a matter of preference. If man goes to work and does manly things while woman stays home and cooks brownies and keeps the house, I can't really see why I should be offended.
I also think there's a role for manliness and womanliness in their traditional sense in society, and there will be something lost if it becomes some unspoken requirement that men or women act in a specific politically correct way. If we're going to live by the principle of to each his (or her) own, it's got to apply both ways, meaning I can no more condemn a man for his femininity than you can condemn a man for his masculinity, even should you find it backwards-thinking, narrow minded, and lacking in credibility.
I completely agree. I was only criticising the notion of gender roles, e.g. the role of the woman is to stay at home and cook, clean, look after the kids, whilst the role of the man is to be the breadwinner. That doesn't just have personal implications, that has implications about the entirety of each gender.
Yes I understand. You don't want to argue on this issue, for the simple reason that you don't have an argument. Instead, you just want to throw dirt at it and discredit it. That, for sure, you want to do. :)
How do you know whether or not I have an argument of the sort that you expect? Just because I haven't presented one?
And yes, I've chosen to draw attention to the more absurd and condemnable parts of your posts. It pretty much discredits itself, for what little credibility was there to begin with. I'm just drawing attention to it and commenting on it.
And yes, I've chosen to draw attention to the more absurd and condemnable parts of your posts. It pretty much discredits itself, for what little credibility was there to begin with. I'm just drawing attention to it and commenting on it.
Problem? :)
Nope, it certainly doesn't discredit itself, it it did, then certainly you and Wosret would not bother with the insults.
How do you know whether or not I have an argument of the sort that you expect? Just because I haven't presented one?
Yes, in the absence of an argument, and your refusal to present one, I am forced to conclude that you don't have one, because naturally, if you did, you would present it :)
I completely agree. I was only criticising the notion of gender roles, e.g. the role of the woman is to stay at home and cook, clean, look after the kids, whilst the role of the man is to be the breadwinner. That doesn't just have personal implications, that has implications about the entirety of each gender.
Gender roles are social expectations from each gender. They are always there, regardless of what they actually happen to be.
This was a vice, and it was called incontinence among other names (so I don't know from what hat Sapientia pulls these stories - it's historically inauthentic).
Again, you're not arguing against me here, you're arguing against your own straw men. There's nothing historically inauthentic about what I said, and when it comes to authorities on history, I'll look elsewhere. You've demonstrated a severe lack of both knowledge and judgement in that regard.
You've demonstrated a severe lack of both knowledge and judgement in that regard.
Proof? As far as I am aware, I was the only one in that thread who provided SEVERAL links to historical sources proving my points ;) . It's easy when we just attempt to throw dirt at others Sapientia (or when the whole history we know is off wikipedia like Wosret's responses in that thread). Try bringing some proof as well, this is, afterall, a philosophy forum! ;)
Yes, historically speaking your views are considered radical. Most human beings who have ever lived in fact would consider your views radical.
Ah, I see, you have to add that qualification. Well, now that you've done so, your accusation loses much relevance. Many perfectly acceptable things would be radical in contrast to historical standards.
Independence among women in modern Western society seems to be more widely valued now than ever before, and the trend seems to be growing. Also, a more independent lifestyle, as in, for example, the lifestyle of the bachelor, is more widely accepted, and less widely frowned upon than it has been historically.
No, not contra Sapientia. I didn't say that it was a virtue, so that isn't contrary to what I've said.
Right. You didn't say it was a virtue. Then what the fuck were you saying above there in response to jamalrob who used trait/virtue interchangeably? Were you suggesting that independence which is according to you more widely valued in modern Western society among women, and the more independent bachelor lifestyle, are you suggesting these things are not virtues? If you are, then why did you answer this in response to a post that WAS treating those as virtues huh?
Yes, in the absence of an argument, and your refusal to present one, I am forced to conclude that you don't have one, because naturally, if you did, you would present it. :)
See, this speaks for itself. Is this an example of the kind of reasoning I'd be up against? :)
See, this speaks for itself. Is this an example of the kind of reasoning I'd be up against? :)
This is a philosophy forum, and we're not children playing hide and seek. If you have arguments you present them. If you don't present them, you cannot claim that you are right, and I have every right to dismiss your claims otherwise :)
Gender roles are social expectations from each gender. They are always there, regardless of what they actually happen to be.
They're more than expectations. There's a normative element to it. There's a big difference between expecting a woman to act a certain way and thinking that she should act that way - and purely on account of her being a woman.
They're more than expectations. There's a normative element to it. There's a big difference between expecting a woman to act a certain way and thinking that she should act that way - and purely on account of her being a woman.
People are expected to follow social expectations yes - that's kind of tautological though.
Right. You didn't say it was a virtue. Then what the fuck were you saying above there in response to jamalrob who used trait/virtue interchangeably? Were you suggesting that independence which is according to you more widely valued in modern Western society among women, and the more independent bachelor lifestyle, are you suggesting these things are not virtues? If you are, then why did you answer this in response to a post that WAS treating those as virtues huh?
No, I don't think that he was using the two terms interchangeably. I think that he knows full well the difference between a trait and a virtue, and that the former isn't necessarily the latter. I think that he had the foresight to acknowledge, and allow for, the possibility that others in the discussion might not necessarily consider the traits that he listed to be virtues.
I don't think of everything in terms of virtues or vices, as it sometimes seems you do. I was just making an impartial statement about society - past and present. But you're not too far off about my judgement of today's society. I do think that we're better off in many ways since some of those stuffy old Victorian morals have lost their appeal.
I do think that we're better off in many ways since some of those stuffy old Victorian morals have lost their appeal.
Oh yes, as if sexual morality was a Victorian concept. What about all of the Ancients? Have you forgot about them? How about virtually every other period in human history? :) The Victorian age was highly immoral in terms of sexuality (it prevented most people, especially women, from enjoying a natural good - many women were expected to act as if they don't enjoy sex even with their husbands - that was insane). Not as immoral as today, but still bad.
People are expected to follow social expectations yes - that's kind of tautological though.
Expectation alone doesn't suffice when we're talking about morality. We're not just talking about sociology. There has to be more than that. It's about judgement, and a certain sort of judgement. It's about what it means to meet or not to meet those expectations.
Expectation alone doesn't suffice when we're talking about morality. We're not just talking about sociology. There has to be more than that. It's about judgement, and a certain sort of judgement. It's about what it means to meet or not to meet those expectations.
Gender roles are social constructs, not moral ones primarily. I've argued that gender roles can and do have moral impacts on society sometimes.
Oh yes, as if sexual morality was a Victorian concept. What about all of the Ancients? Have you forgot about them? How about virtually every other period in human history? :) The Victorian age was highly immoral in terms of sexuality. Not as immoral as today, but still bad.
No, I haven't forgot about them. I intentionally chose one which, today, can be used to describe any set of values that espouse sexual restraint, low tolerance of crime and a strict social code of conduct. That sounds remarkably like you.
And note that I spoke of Victorian morality, not the Victorian age. I was speaking specifically of the values that were espoused at the time, not of the actions of those in that era, which may or may not have accorded with said-values.
No, I haven't forgot about them. I intentionally chose one which, today, can be used to describe any set of values that espouse sexual restraint, low tolerance of crime and a strict social code of conduct. That sounds remarkably like you.
No you intentionally chose one in order to smear what I try to say, and associate it with something that was evil from the past so as to make it lose credibility :D . Almost all religions and philosophies in man's history have espoused sexual restraint to a certain extent. Why? Why did people feel the need to do this? Do you think they were idiots??
Reply to Sapientia Indeed. That's why we must investigate it rationally instead of merely enforce a view saying that we have some hidden argument which justifies the current status quo.
Proof? As far as I am aware, I was the only one in that thread who provided SEVERAL links to historical sources proving my points ;) . It's easy when we just attempt to throw dirt at others Sapientia (or when the whole history we know is off wikipedia like Wosret's responses in that thread). Try bringing some proof as well, this is, afterall, a philosophy forum! ;)
Did you miss that link I posted earlier? There's loads of evidence out there. Do your own research into the mistreatment or oppression of women throughout history - and not just since the 19th century.
No you intentionally chose one in order to smear what I try to say, and associate it with something that was evil from the past so as to make it lose credibility :D . Almost all religions and philosophies in man's history have espoused sexual restraint to a certain extent. Why? Why did people feel the need to do this? Do you think they were idiots??
No, not all of them. And I'm not arguing against restraint, I'm arguing against restraint that I consider to be excessive - and I'm not just arguing against that either; I'm arguing against your interpretation of what that entails. If it was just your personal view, and you weren't all judgemental about it, then I wouldn't find it so objectionable.
Also, Arkady is right to point out your appeals to arguable authorities and appeals to the masses, as well as pointing out that, being historical, they might not be as relevant or reliable today as they once seemed.
Your link is not specific. I looked at the first thing that came up. http://www.historyofwomen.org/oppression.html
It is true that there are incidents of female oppression in some cultures in the past and today. Notice though that at the same time men were also abused. It wasn't only women. The punishment for adultery, for example, was to be stoned, according to Jewish law, for both men and women. Both men and women were abused during the Inquisition, being accused of sorcery, etc. The percentages vary, but they range anywhere from a low of 25% men, to a high of 50% men (of course, likely to be closer to the lower end - probably around 35% men; this is what I gather from my own readings). What you call "female oppression" in history, I call human oppression, because it applied equally to both men and women. It is true that there were special clauses that applied only to women in moral codes. Why? Because women are different then men, and hence some things will apply only to them. Likewise, there are elements that apply solely to men. For example, in Latin American culture it was common to punish a man who took the virginity of your daughter/sister unlawfully with death. The woman would not get punished. Does this count as male oppression? Perhaps, but I prefer not to create the division. It's human oppression. Also, the link provides no actual historical accounts, just mere descriptions. Real historical accounts would mean citing historians from that time period who claimed that women as a social class were oppressed. Citing a few moral codes from here and there is not the way historical research proceeds. My claim still stands. Women as a social class were never oppressed in-so-far as they were women. They were rather oppressed in-so-far as they were human beings - because men were equally oppressed as well.
No, not all of them. And I'm not arguing against restraint, I'm arguing against restraint that I consider to be excessive - and I'm not just arguing against that either; I'm arguing against your interpretation of what that entails. If it was just your personal view, and you weren't all judgemental about it, then I wouldn't find it so objectionable.
I didn't say all of them. I said ALMOST all of them. It's not just my personal view because this can be proved rationally, as I have proven it using the three arguments I have provided. That it can be proved rationally doesn't of course mean I can shove it up anyone's throat or force people to believe it, but it does mean that if they do choose to believe otherwise they are being irrational - but it's ultimately their choice, if that's what they want.
Nope, nope. Canadians would never make such a mistake! Americans put Canadian flags on their luggage and things when they travel because it is definitely difficult to tell us apart, but the world loves us... Americans... not so much.
Right. You merely prove my point that you want to oppress people who think differently. You want to drive them out of your community because you're afraid of them.
If by thinking differently, you mean demonizing, and devaluing people, then yeah, I'm not a huge fan of that. Stopping someone from beating someone else with a stick is hardly oppressing them.
Funny too that you go on about feminization making men weak, and things... you must be quite the action hero. What's your bench brah?
I didn't say all of them. I said ALMOST all of them.
Well, I don't think that ALMOST all of them are idiots, either. But that doesn't mean that their judgement in the very specific respect that we're discussing wasn't poor. I mean, just think of the well renowned people throughout history who have had poor judgement in some respects, whether it be sexism, racism, antisemitism, snobbery, and so on and so forth. It'd be pointless to name drop as you have done, because it doesn't demonstrate what you want it to.
If by thinking differently, you mean demonizing, and devaluing people, then yeah, I'm not a huge fan of that. Stopping someone from beating someone else with a stick is hardly oppressing them.
I don't devalue them. If someone chooses to be irrational do you think I am the one devaluing them? I just raise the point that they are devaluing themselves. If they want they listen to me, if they don't, then they don't. Simple :D
Funny too that you go on about feminization making men weak, and things... you must be quite the action hero. What's your bench brah?
The real question is how many people can you defend against, not what's your bench ;) Martial arts is something that I have been practicing for some time though :)
Well, I don't think that ALMOST all of them are idiots, either. But that doesn't mean that their judgement in the very specific respect that we're discussing wasn't poor. I mean, just think of the well renowned people throughout history who have had poor judgement in some respects, whether it be sexism, racism, antisemitism, snobbery, and so on and so forth. It'd be pointless to name drop as you have done, because it doesn't demonstrate what you want it to.
Yes that is indeed true. But note that I have generally referred to the geniuses of mankind from the past when I refer to the Ancients or to other cultures (at least I have clearly done so in my posts, which are scattered in different threads) I think those people had the moral side of the question MOSTLY right. The fact that most of them virtually agree on sexual matters, seems to me to indicate that they did have that bit right. Most of them don't think anti-semitism is good for example. In fact, very few do. Most of them do not agree about slavery in the way it was practiced during colonial times (slavery in Ancient Greece was a different animal). And so forth.
Because it involves spending time with men as opposed to women if you are a man. In that sense, it is gay, because one is attracted to spend ones times solely (or mostly) with men (hence thereby necessitating that the sexual needs (which DONT mean having sex necessarily) are satisfied by other men)
I love how you start out talking about nothing gay whatsoever, and then you just throw it in there at the end as if it's an inevitability! :D
Nothing that involves spending time with men as opposed to women if you are a man is, by virtue of that alone, gay. Nor is the attraction to spend time mostly or even solely with other men. Were monks, for example, "being gay"? :D
That part about sexual needs being satisfied by other men definitely sounds gay though.
I don't devalue them. If someone chooses to be irrational do you think I am the one devaluing them? I just raise the point that they are devaluing themselves. If they want they listen to me, if they don't, then they don't. Simple :D
See, I don't insult you. If you choose to be a stupid twat, am I the one at fault? I just raise the point of your stupid twattery. If you want to stop, that would be awesome.
More to the point, you're suggesting that general or normalized acceptance of things you disagree with is bad, and ought to be prevented. I saw a Ugandan arguing for the "kill the gays' bill" making precisely these arguments. Totally cool with gays, but it's evil that they are recruiting, and corrupting the young by telling children in schools that homosexuality is a legitimate, respectable life, and isn't evil, or to be despised. In doing so they're attacking the family, and recruiting children. Just the act of publicly speaking positively, or prideful of one's identity, and person if it isn't agreeable to people like you is corruption, and wicked.
The real question is how many people can you defend against, not what's your bench ;) Martial arts is something that I have been practicing for some time though :)
No... believe me... that isn't the question... lol... martial arts isn't real. It's just one of the many ways you can be fooled out of money. Anyone that can fend off even two people of decent physical health is pretty fucking awesome. Three is near super human. How many people do you figure your could through your play fighting?
This is a philosophy forum, and we're not children playing hide and seek. If you have arguments you present them. If you don't present them, you cannot claim that you are right, and I have every right to dismiss your claims otherwise :)
This is a Shoutbox. It's not part of the philosophy section. Philosophy here is optional, and the same standard doesn't apply. :)
Nothing that involves spending time with men as opposed to women if you are a man is, by virtue of that alone, gay. Nor is the attraction to spend time mostly or even solely with other men. Were monks, for example, "being gay"? :D
In so far as monks also have needs of a sexual nature, they also display a certain gayness about themselves. You think of sexual needs solely as masturbation and/or sex, but that is not true. Virtually all needs of tenderness are of a sexual nature, that is why, as per Freud, one's first sexual interactions are with one's parents.
See, I don't insult you. If you choose to be a stupid twat, am I the one at fault? I just raise the point of your stupid twattery. If you want to stop, that would be awesome.
Indeed boss, but you must first prove that. Then I wouldn't actually mind it :)
No... believe me... that isn't the question... lol... martial arts isn't real. It's just one of the many ways you can be fooled out of money. Anyone that can fend off even two people of decent physical health is pretty fucking awesome. Three is near super human. How many people do you figure your could through your play fighting?
Fake muscles aren't real. Martial arts is quite real, I've seen and been involved in some fights (of course it depends on how you train it as well... if you train it just for the kicks, of course it's not gonna be real; most people don't train it properly). I reckon I could take on at this level on as many people as you want of no training, unarmed and average physical stature, until I get tired obviously (which will probably be quite fast - my endurance isn't as good as it used to be). More than 4-5 cannot attack you at once anyway, even if they surround you. Skilled people, probably I couldn't withstand more than two, even two is exceedingly difficult. It depends on the surrounding environment though. In some environments I reckon I could deal with up to 3. If they have a knife, in an open environment, only one skilled person, MAYBE MAYBE two unskilled, but I doubt it. But yeah, martial arts can be quite powerful. I have a woman friend, who is in the army atm, and she used to train at the same place as me; she got attacked by three guys armed with bats in the street. Beat all of them up with no scratches :D .
"Gendered roles" like who does the cooking, cleaning, and laundry, and who does the ditch digging, cattle herding, and mechanical work are constructed, I agree. I think there is much less support for the notion that sexual roles (straight/gay, dominant/not dominant, all that) are constructed.
True enough, a gay man born and raised in Kenya, for instance, which is quit hostile toward homosexuality, isn't going to experience gay social life like some gay guy in Chicago or L.A., because it won't be structured in the same way. His gayness, however, is going to be pretty much the same -- just as a straight guy born in Kenya is going to be pretty much like a straight man anywhere, as far as sex is concerned.
And note that I spoke of Victorian morality, not the Victorian age.
Whose Victorian morality? The Victorian morality of the ruling class, the royal family, the petite bourgeoisie, the working class, or the immiserated and dispossessed? Some people could afford to flout the expected virtue-roles for their class--like quite wealthy men who could hire sex or seduce women (or other men) as they wished. Some people (the very poorest) had nothing to lose. Many Victorian and Edwardian working class and petite bourgeoisie trod the strait and narrow paths of virtue as prescribed by the church (CofE, RC, or Methodist).
***Impacts... Various critics have disliked and complained about the use of 'impact' in social contexts--especially in the late 1990s, 20 aughts. "The success of marriage was "impacted" by television." That sort of thing. I was reading a history written in the mid 1960s and the author used "impacted" exactly that way. "Impact" has "impacted" the language and is probably here to stay.
Indeed. That's why we must investigate it rationally instead of merely enforce a view saying that we have some hidden argument which justifies the current status quo.
I doubt it would be much of an investigation, and I doubt it'd boil down to rationality. I suspect that it would rather be a debate over preexisting beliefs, values and opinions, and I suspect that it would boil down to subjectivity.
I doubt it would be much of an investigation, and I doubt it'd boil down to rationality. I suspect that it would rather be a debate over preexisting beliefs, values and opinions, and I suspect that it would boil down to subjectivity.
That would again need to be proven. I think, just like Spinoza, Aristotle, and Plato that we can arrive at morality rationally once we understand the nature of the world and the nature of man (and hence man's place in the world). You'd rather say that we'll have disagreements regarding either the nature of man or the nature of the world, or the place of man in the world. I maintain still that one of us is right and the other is wrong, and it is possible, using reason, to come to a conclusion regarding this.
In so far as monks also have needs of a sexual nature, they also display a certain gayness about themselves. You think of sexual needs solely as masturbation and/or sex, but that is not true. Virtually all needs of tenderness are of a sexual nature, that is why, as per Freud, one's first sexual interactions are with one's parents.
I thought that that might be your tactic: to define "gay" or "sexual" loosely - so loosely that people might understandably find your usage odd or inappropriate.
Well, if you look at it that way, then I guess we all "have a certain gayness about ourselves", and we're all a lot more sexual then we realise.
Well I don't know how you got your knowledge about martial arts, but I can tell you that your views are unrealistic when it comes to people who actually know how to fight... Just because I've seen such people fight in different scenarios.
"Gendered roles" like who does the cooking, cleaning, and laundry, and who does the ditch digging, cattle herding, and mechanical work are constructed, I agree. I think there is much less support for the notion that sexual roles (straight/gay, dominant/not dominant, all that) are constructed.
Whose Victorian morality? The Victorian morality of the ruling class, the royal family, the petite bourgeoisie, the working class, or the immiserated and dispossessed? Some people could afford to flout the expected virtue-roles for their class--like quite wealthy men who could hire sex or seduce women (or other men) as they wished. Some people (the very poorest) had nothing to lose. Many Victorian and Edwardian working class and petite bourgeoisie trod the strait and narrow paths of virtue as prescribed by the church (CofE, RC, or Methodist).
True enough, a gay man born and raised in Kenya, for instance, which is quit hostile toward homosexuality, isn't going to experience gay social life like some gay guy in Chicago or L.A., because it won't be structured in the same way. His gayness, however, is going to be pretty much the same -- just as a straight guy born in Kenya is going to be pretty much like a straight man anywhere, as far as sex is concerned.
Yep, agreed. BC you are indeed a wise fellow, I have to say at least that much!
I thought that that might be your tactic: to define "gay" or "sexual" loosely - so loosely that people might understandably find your usage odd or inappropriate.
Well, if you look at it that way, then I guess we all "have a certain gayness about ourselves", and we're all a lot more sexual then we realise.
Not really, I never really sought to get affection from other men for example, except when I was very young. I am just one example. There're others as well. Also, these uses of words I didn't make up. Freud, Otto Rank, etc. also used such a definition of sexuality. Not to mention the whole Eastern bunch with Kundalini, raising sexual energies, etc.
...but I can tell you that your views are unrealistic when it comes to people who actually know how to fight... Just because I've seen such people fight in different scenarios.
No you haven't. You have never seen anyone fend of 4-5 decently healthy individuals that seriously meant to do them harm, other than in a movie. I promise. You liar.
That would again need to be proven. I think, just like Spinoza, Aristotle, and Plato that we can arrive at morality rationally once we understand the nature of the world and the nature of man (and hence man's place in the world). You'd rather say that we'll have disagreements regarding either the nature of man or the nature of the world, or the place of man in the world. I maintain still that one of us is right and the other is wrong, and it is possible, using reason, to come to a conclusion regarding this.
My thinking in that regard is closer to someone like Hume, who said things like "Reason is the slave of the passions", "Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason", and, of course, "It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger".
No you haven't. You have never seen anyone fend of 4-5 decently healthy individuals that seriously meant to do them harm, other than in a movie. I promise. You liar.
I haven't seen an actual fight of 1 v 4-5 (if I had, I would have helped the poor guy! lol :D ), but I told you my friend fended off 3 men with bats who tried to rob her in the street (and I really have no reason to doubt her to be honest - no indication that she tried to show off, she really isn't that type). I have sparred against 6 before, and they were skilled. 4-5 decent healthy individuals with NO fighting experience are not hard to deal with, mainly because they have very little control of their emotions and reactions. Their knowledge is low, and my skill is sufficient to take advantage of this. You don't seem to realise that there is a huge difference between someone with no fighting experience compared to a very good fighter, but not such a huge difference between a mediocre fighter and an excellent one. The distance between them gets smaller the better they get. That is why someone like M. Ali couldn't beat up George Foreman and Sonny Liston at the same time. But he could certainly woop the floor with 3-4 average guys with no fighting experience, with great ease.
My thinking in that regard is closer to someone like Hume, who said things like "Reason is the slave of the passions", "Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason.", and, of course, "It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger".
Ah yes, I already pre-empted that. The problem is, unless you adopt Hume's radical skepticism you won't be able to support that view. And if you do adopt Hume's radical skepticism, I will claim that such a view is ultimately doomed to self-contradiction. If you don't, then it's hard to maintain for example that "it is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger". Why? Because we know that man has a nature, and his nature urges him towards a certain telos, that telos being the thriving of his own being. We know therefore, do we not, that the destruction of the world cannot be rationally preferred, because it would mean that the man in question wants to destroy that on which his whole existence depends (the world) which is irrational. It's contrary to what we know about man's nature, and thus necessarily contrary to his reason. Thus, a man could only prefer that if 1. he was irrational, 2. he made the mistaken judgement that his own being doesn't depend on the world, and thus sees no reason against destroying the world.
Reply to Agustino Well, it's a bit hard to judge when you haven't actually spelled out what you mean or given any examples. Even grown guys seek a sort of affection from their male friends and family at times. I doubt that you're an exception to the rule. Perhaps you just have in mind a particular sort of affection: one that's more sterotypically feminine.
Well, it's a bit hard to judge when you haven't actually spelled out what you mean or given any examples. Even grown guys seek a sort of affection from their male friends and family at times. I doubt that you're an exception to the rule. Perhaps you just have in mind a particular sort of affection: one that's more sterotypically feminine.
I think that's what I mean by affection. I don't just mean validation.
Reply to Agustino And I know that you didn't just make it up, and that it's not without precedent, but it's also hardly a standard or commonplace interpretation. I for one don't jump to the conclusion that that sort of behavior is sexual in nature. Although, again, you haven't actually given any examples, so...
Ah yes, I already pre-empted that. The problem is, unless you adopt Hume's radical skepticism you won't be able to support that view. And if you do adopt Hume's radical skepticism, I will claim that such a view is ultimately doomed to self-contradiction. If you don't, then it's hard to maintain for example that "it is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger". Why? Because we know that man has a nature, and his nature urges him towards a certain telos, that telos being the thriving of his own being. We know therefore, do we not, that the destruction of the world cannot be rationally preferred, because it would mean that the man in question wants to destroy that on which his whole existence depends (the world) which is irrational. It's contrary to what we know about man's nature, and thus necessarily contrary to his reason. Thus, a man could only prefer that if 1. he was irrational, 2. he made the mistaken judgement that his own being doesn't depend on the world, and thus sees no reason against destroying the world.
You may have died of suffocation, all covered in mud, but at least you'd have been virtuous. Or would you have been?
No. :D
"It is not difficult to avoid death, gentlemen; IT IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO AVOID WICKEDNESS, FOR IT RUNS FASTER THAN DEATH [...] But sure that if you kill the sort of man I say I am, you will not harm me more than yourselves [...] you are wrong if you believe that by killing people you will prevent anyone from reproaching you for not living in the right way" ;)
TheWillowOfDarknessApril 16, 2016 at 01:24#111000 likes
Reply to Sapientia Don't let Agustino's incomplete analysis fool you. Reason is always involved in the question of ethics, namely, in thinking about and respecting the logical significance of ethics. Ethics is a matter of objectivity, of respecting the significance of various possible states of the world.
Most importantly, this is not in conflict with Hume's analysis, for rather than denying the objectivity of ethics, it merely identifies the difference between ethical significance and the presence of state in the world, such that we don't equivocate the presence of some state or value as necessary ethical.
And "proof" has nothing to do with this because it is a distinction of logical category, not any sort of empirical claim or derived statement.
Don't let Agustino's incomplete analysis fool you. Reason is always involved in the question of ethics, namely, in thinking about an respecting the logical significance of ethics. Ethics is a matter of objectivity, of respecting the significance of various possible states of the world.
How quaint that I don't disagree with any of this :D
Which makes your responses in this discussion outright embarrassing. You misrepresented the relationship of Hume's thought to ethics, you committed the category error of suggesting there is "proof" for ethical truths to Sapientia, you ignored the question of ethical truths (e.g. the ethics of valuing and acting towards gay people, ethics of promiscuity, etc.,etc.) which people were trying to discuss, deflecting them in favour of equivocations of ethical truth with whatever values are in power or are popular amongst the people.
you committed the category error of suggesting there is "proof" for ethical truths to Sapientia
And why do you think there isn't proof for ethical truths? (you call it a category error - now prove it!) Granted that human beings have a nature, it follows quite clearly that fulfillment of that nature is an ethical truth. Thus, a proof for an ethical truth is connecting a particular action or set of actions with the nature of man, and showing how such an action leads to the fulfillment of the aforementioned nature.
No, I explained an ethical truth, namely that promiscuity is harmful to both the promiscuous person and to society.
TheWillowOfDarknessApril 17, 2016 at 02:29#111270 likes
Reply to Agustino You claimed Hume's had radical scepticism towards ethical truths when he doesn't. More importantly, as you repeat now, you are treating ethical expression as if it something that can be known prior to knowledge of that ethical expression. As if we could look out into the world an see something which revealed to us the ethical truth without already understanding it.
Hume's opposition to "reason" here is against the idea we can find an independent standard which allows us to determine what's ethical. The problem that any approach as you describe in the second paragraph, as already assumed what is harmful, fulfilling, nature or ethical. What you have is not a "proof," in the derived sense, but rather a description of ethical truth.
And you are unwilling to stand on this ground. Every time someone asks questions in terms of ethics, you deflect it to some question of popularity or value already used. Promiscuity, for example, you frequently cite as wrong not because it is harmful, but because so many people throughout history think its disgusting. On gay rights, you go on and on about people having to respect the law, without out any consideration of the actual issue raised, which was whether such a culture was ethical in the first place. All the time you are shifting the question of ethics to some state which supposedly "shows it" rather than arguing it in terms of actual ethics. (such as, for example, "I think it is a good thing that gay people are ostracised and killed in some countries, because the ethical course of action is to act against people who so many in the society find disgusting and wrong." )
It results in an embarrassing set of ethical analysis which puts the meaning of ethics in power (popularity, enforced values, current law), rather than in whether or not action is ethical.
More importantly, as you repeat now, you are treating ethical expression as if it something that can be known prior to knowledge of that ethical expression. As if we could look out into the world an see something which revealed to us the ethical truth without already understanding it.
I have never read a more incoherent sentence. "Something that can be known PRIOR TO KNOWLEDGE". Alright. Same type of verbiage that Hegel liked, I see.
Hume's opposition to "reason" here is against the idea we can find an independent standard which allows us to determine what's ethical. The problem that any approach as you describe in the second paragraph, as already assumed what is harmful, fulfilling, nature or ethical.
No, I have identified, via rational inquiry and empiricism connected with an understanding of human nature what is fulfilling.
Promiscuity, for example, you frequently cite as wrong not because it is harmful, but because so many people throughout history think its disgusting.
Nope, I gave 3 arguments why it is wrong (and by the way - yes because it is harmful that's why it is wrong). You should revist that thread. And it had nothing to do with people throughout history. The people throughout history is to provide further empirical authority to the view, NOT to prove it. Proof was given prior to that argument.
On gay rights, you go on and on about people having to respect the law, without out any consideration of the actual issue raised, which was whether such a culture was ethical in the first place.
Doesn't reflect my current position.
TheWillowOfDarknessApril 17, 2016 at 02:53#111300 likes
That one. You treat it as if Hume takes a position a position we can't trust anything about ethics. This is not true. He merely identifies what is present can be equivocated with ethical truth.
Agustino:No, I have identified, via rational inquiry and empiricism connected with an understanding of human nature what is fulfilling.
Nope, I gave 3 arguments why it is wrong. You should revist that thread. And it had nothing to do with people throughout history. The people throughout history is to provide further empirical authority to the view, NOT to prove it. Proof was given prior to that argument.
That's nonsensical if you are talking about ethics. If you spoken an ethical truth, any empirical argument about how many people valued it is irrelevant. It doesn't add anything to the ethical case. The empirical has no authority there.
Agustino: I have never read a more incoherent sentence. "Something that can be known PRIOR TO KNOWLEDGE". Alright. Same type of verbiage that Hegel liked, I see.
But that's my exact point: you appeals to empirical states as a demonstration of authority are useless. You are acting like the presence of those empirical states gives your ethical argument force, as if the presence of societies which valued like that, supports the ethical truth you are talking about.
Supposedly, the empirical demonstration is meant to be what confirms your ethical argument such that any opposing position must be insanity.
You make your ethical argument as if looking at those societies grants ethical knowledge you don't already have.
Agustino:Doesn't reflect my current position.
But it does, at least in the recent few threads I saw you in. You went around saying that people in a society which devalues gay people ought to shut-up and take their punishment because it was the law and consider just by many people.
That one. You treat it as if Hume takes a position a position we can't trust anything about ethics. This is not true. He merely identifies what is present can be equivocated with ethical truth.
What makes you think the radical skepticism there refers to ethical matters? It actually refers to epistemological matters, and I claim that Hume's ethical position regarding the role of reason ONLY follows if his epistemological skepticism holds true.
That's nonsensical if you are talking about ethics. If you spoken an ethical truth, any empirical argument about how many people valued it is irrelevant. It doesn't add anything to the ethical case. The empirical has no authority there.
The purpose of that is, again, not to prove the case. It is, like Pascal's wagger, a rhetorical device, aimed at moving the will, not the intellect.
But that's my exact point: you appeals to empirical states as a demonstration of authority are useless. You are acting like the presence of those empirical states gives your ethical argument force, as if the presence of societies which valued like that, supports the ethical truth you are talking about.
Supposedly, the empirical demonstration is meant to be what confirms your ethical argument such that any opposing position must be insanity.
This is false, because what you are addressing isn't my intellectual proof that things are as I put them in ethics. If you are interested in that, please look at the three arguments I provided, especially my adapted Kantian argument, and my argument from natural law. You misunderstand the purpose of the historical statement, which is, again rhetorical.
But it does, at least in the recent few threads I saw you in. You went around saying that people in a society which devalues gay people ought to shut-up and take their punishment because it was the law and consider just by many people.
Which recent (in the past month) thread do I say this in? Where I have indeed said this (which is about 2-3 months ago), I clarified that it does not represent my position on how homosexual people ought to be treated (ethics), but rather a political position regarding a country's right to be sovereign.
Reply to Baden Hah! Why, because only sophists sell virtue/wisdom for money? Maybe I'm not selling it for money, but I still need to sell it... People don't want to accept it, so I need to sell it to them :) - can't just give it.
Reply to Baden Exactly... that's why the mission becomes, just as Kierkegaard put it, to sneak Christianity back into Christendom ... or to sneak virtue back into the "virtuous" ;)
?Baden
Hah! Why, because only sophists sell virtue/wisdom for money? Maybe I'm not selling it for money, but I still need to sell it... People don't want to accept it, so I need to sell it to them :) - can't just give it.
I think I would like to see the health and hygiene certificates of your suppliers. From what I have seen recently that is in veryyyyyy short supply.
Well, I'll leave it to you to take the missionary position. Let's see what you can sneak in. O:)
Ouch! :s
TheWillowOfDarknessApril 18, 2016 at 01:08#111970 likes
Agustino:What makes you think the radical skepticism there refers to ethical matters? It actually refers to epistemological matters, and I claim that Hume's ethical position regarding the role of reason ONLY follows if his epistemological skepticism holds true.
Embarrassing, Agustino. Now you are saying that Hume's ethical position is a subset of of his radical skepticism, while trying to maintain that radical skepticism has nothing to do with knowledge of ethics. This is an outright contradiction. If Hume's position on ethical knowledge was dependent position of radical skepticism, then radical skepticism would be referring to ethical knowledge.
Agustino:The purpose of that is, again, not to prove the case. It is, like Pascal's wagger, a rhetorical device, aimed at moving the will, not the intellect.
I am aware of that. My point is that you are predating it is something else for rhetorical efficiently and so telling a falsehood. You don't say, when making you comment about what people have valued historically, that it has nothing to do with whether or your position on ethics is true and you are just trying to convince people. You act like the popularity is a reason we can trust an ethical argument. The rhetorical effectiveness of this example is built on the lie popularity means truth.
Agustino: I clarified that it does not represent my position on how homosexual people ought to be treated (ethics), but rather a political position regarding a country's right to be sovereign.
People aren't separate from the countries in which the are living. To argue that gay people ought to persecuted because the governing force in the country wants to is to suggest how gay people ought to be treated. It is to say there is no ethical problem with persecuting gay people provided it is what a governing force of a country wants to do.
Embarrassing, Agustino. Now you are saying that Hume's ethical position is a subset of of his radical skepticism, while trying to maintain that radical skepticism has nothing to do with knowledge of ethics. This is an outright contradiction. If Hume's position on ethical knowledge was dependent position of radical skepticism, then radical skepticism would be referring to ethical knowledge.
Not at all. Hume's radical skepticism has to do with his conceptions of reason and the passions, and the power (or lack of it in this case) that reason has over the passions. In this manner it dictates his ethics. But this does NOT make him a moral/ethical skeptic - he still believes in the virtues, but for different reasons.
You act like the popularity is a reason we can trust an ethical argument. The rhetorical effectiveness of this example is built on the lie popularity means truth.
Nope, I don't. That's why I give arguments as well, so that arguments decide the truth intellectually, and rhetorics move the will.
Indeed. Which is what makes your argument absurd. Hume's arguments about ethics do not rely on his radical scepticism at all. You are confusing an understanding of knowledge which led Hume to his ethics for his ethics, as an argument, being dependent on radical scepticism.
[quote="Agustino]"Nope, I don't. That's why I give arguments as well, so that arguments decide the truth intellectually, and rhetorics move the will.[/quote]
But that's not how it works. Appeals to popularity work on the idea that many people valuing something makes it important or truthful. The rhetorical device only functions when this falsehood is applied.
Otherwise everyone would just look at young go: "So? That many people in the past valued it doesn't make it truthful. Why would that convince my of anything?"
Agustino:I didn't argue that they OUGHT to be persecuted because the governing force wants to.
Yes, you did. You might not have said those words, but that is what your position entails. If the government wants to ostracise, imprison or kill gay people, you argue gay peopled have no ethical leg to stand on. You say they ought to take what's coming to them, that they can't stand-up an oppose the government on ethical grounds, that when the government acts against gay people it will be in the ethical correct (it's their right as sovereign, you claim).
Indeed. Which is what makes your argument absurd. Hume's arguments about ethics do not rely on his radical scepticism at all. You are confusing an understanding of knowledge which led Hume to his ethics for his ethics, as an argument, being dependent on radical scepticism.
If he didn't take a position of radical skepticism in epistemological matters, then he COULD NOT have set forth the limitations on reason when it comes to control over the passions that he did, and THUS his ethics would have been different. I don't understand why you act like you don't understand this simple thing, and instead keep on trying to contort my words.
But that's not how it works. Appeals to popularity work on the idea that many people valuing something makes it important or truthful. The rhetorical device only functions when this falsehood is applied.
Otherwise everyone would just look at young go: "So? That many people in the past valued it doesn't make it truthful. Why would that convince my of anything?"
Yes, its untruthful in this sense. So what? Its purpose is to convince, not to be truthful. If you want truth, that's what the arguments deliver. That's why it's arguments + rhetoric, not just rhetoric - otherwise we would be politicians not philosophers. Although I will say that it does pose problems for the opposing view - namely the opposing view must explain, if the view is indeed false, how so many people came to believe it.
If the government wants to ostracise, imprison or kill gay people, you argue gay peopled have no ethical leg to stand on. You say they ought to take what's coming to them, that they can't stand-up an oppose the government on ethical grounds, that when the government acts against gay people it will be in the ethical correct (it's their right as sovereign, you claim).
No I argued they should follow the law while in that country, and if they don't like it, they should try to change it, without breaking it, or move countries. Simple.
Hah! Why, because only sophists sell virtue/wisdom for money? Maybe I'm not selling it for money, but I still need to sell it... People don't want to accept it, so I need to sell it to them :) - can't just give it.
I might be interested in the real thing, but I have no interest in purchasing a pale imitation. You don't strike me as a con artist; more like a Jehovah's Witness: someone who really believes in the shoddy merchandise they're trying to sell.
At least the con artist sees it for what it is, whereas the latter is like someone who has bought into a pyramid scheme and has faith that it's a good investment.
I might be interested in the real thing, but I have no interest in purchasing a pale imitation. You don't strike me as a con artist; more like a Jehovah's Witness: someone who really believes in the shoddy merchandise they're trying to sell.
At least the con artist sees it for what it is, whereas the latter is like someone who has bought into a pyramid scheme and has faith that it's a good investment.
Either I am deluded, or you are deluded, yes I agree :D . So far though, I am the only one who has put forward any sort of arguments to justify their position. So again, I don't know based on WHAT exactly you make your affirmations, except on some fantasies.
Either I am deluded, or you are deluded, yes I agree :D . So far though, I am the only one who has put forward any sort of arguments to justify their position. So again, I don't know based on WHAT exactly you make your affirmations, except on some fantasies.
That's not entirely true. Anyway, I think a debate/discussion about the Humean points I raised in response to some of your claims would be worth pursuing. Some of your other claims, not so much.
Maybe I'll get back to you. But I don't feel obliged to shut up until that time. You can of course simply dismiss my comments if you so choose.
But I don't feel obliged to shut up until that time.
Of course you are not obliged to shut up. It's just irrational not to, at least from an impartial, philosophic point of view, to claim that something is wrong and yet refuse to refute it. But I do respect your freedom, so continue if you so desire :D
Of course you are not obliged to shut up. It's just irrational not to, at least from an impartial, philosophic point of view, to claim that something is wrong and yet refuse to refute it. But I do respect your freedom, so continue if you so desire :D
No, it isn't. On the contrary, the opposite is irrational. It's rational to make a claim that can demonstrably be justified. Whether or not one chooses to produce said-demonstration is irrelevant, provided one doesn't expect one's interlocutor to accept the claim on its own merit if it has been called into question, and I've just given that disclaimer.
No, it isn't. On the contrary, the opposite is irrational. It's rational to make a claim that can demonstrably be justified. Whether or not one chooses to produce said-demonstration is irrelevant, provided one doesn't expect one's interlocutor to accept it, and I've just given that disclaimer.
When you see a couple getting hot and bothered in the street, you tell them to get a room. This thread is for shouting, not discussing. That is why they named it the SHOUTBOX.
When you see a couple getting hot and bothered in the street, you tell them to get a room. This thread is for shouting, not discussing. That is why they named it the SHOUTBOX.
OKAY! SPEAK UP, THEN!
ArguingWAristotleTiffApril 19, 2016 at 12:21#112710 likes
sitting down on a beanbag next to this Frat couch Hanover was talking about~
So if you had to choose only one food to have for the rest of your life, what would it be?
If you had to choose between never taking a shower again or never wearing clothes, which would you choose?
How old were you when you first passionately kissed someone? Where is that person in your life now?
How old were you when you first passionately kissed someone? Where is that person in your life now
14. Nowhere.
Well, I'm sure this is enough information to do a full psychological analysis. Please let me know the results asap so I can securely plan for the rest of my life. :P
Well, I'm sure this is enough information to do a full psychological analysis. Please let me know the results asap so I can securely plan for the rest of my life.
Everyone knows there are only 3 types of personality; idiots, arseholes, and idlers. Clearly, you are an idler. They tend to dominate in discussion forums.
So if you had to choose only one food to have for the rest of your life, what would it be?
If you had to choose between never taking a shower again or never wearing clothes, which would you choose?
How old were you when you first passionately kissed someone? Where is that person in your life now?
Apples, ditch the clothes, and ...
I wish it had been this guy I was in love with when I was 17, but alas... Passionate kissing had to wait till 27. Fortunately, though delayed, there was plenty of it after that.
But greek yogurt IS very good [mango, pomegranate, and blueberry] and in the winter clothes are nice.
So if you had to choose only one food to have for the rest of your life, what would it be?
It would be pizza because you can make any sort of pizza, including putting a hamburger, rack of ribs, ice cream, or whatever on top of it. It's the world's most versatile food, which is why God gave it to his children.
If you had to choose between never taking a shower again or never wearing clothes, which would you choose?
I would never take a shower, but I would take a bath, taking advantage of the loophole you left in your question. I would buy some Mister Bubble and get some toy boats and have a fun splashy time.
How old were you when you first passionately kissed someone? Where is that person in your life now?
16, and I don't know where she is, but she probably still can't get me off her mind.
I'd think that this actress portrayal best represents the expression while the act is being performed. Of course, I would not specifically know as my typical viewpoint would necessarily be from a different angle, although I would be privy to the passionate sounds.
Thank you for this interesting photo, but I do wonder what life experiences have allowed your dear mother to so convincingly capture this emotion.
So if you had to choose only one food to have for the rest of your life, what would it be?
If you had to choose between never taking a shower again or never wearing clothes, which would you choose?
How old were you when you first passionately kissed someone? Where is that person in your life now?
Probably Brussel Sprouts, they're great. Both of those options seem pretty sweet, but I think I'd go nudist, I definitely prefer washing to clothing. I was also about 27 when someone first passionately kissed me, though I wasn't really that into them...
I'll get back to you on that Tiff, I have to ask my lawyers and analysts about it first. And I think I should ask for everyone to sign a non disclosure form before reading the answers.
ArguingWAristotleTiffApril 20, 2016 at 11:41#113300 likes
Sir, you can have your people contact my people but if there are scandalous pictures involved, you can just forward those to me. 8-)
I was having a conversation with a guy at work and made the common observation that it would be far more screwed up for a woman to have sex with a German Shepherd than it would a man. While a man would achieve a certain amount of satisfaction from just having something to rub against, a woman would not achieve emotional or financial security from the act, which are the typical requirements for her satisfaction.
This guy responded as if I said something wrong, failing to see beyond the hypothetical bestiality. I therefore took my argument to a woman in my office and when asked if she agreed, she said "totes," offering her unconditional concurrence.
My point here is simply to say that when you meet a woman and intend to woo her, remember she is looking for something more than a randy furry thing to offer her relief, which makes her unlike you, the typical man, a common dog fucker.
I hope to offer these bits of advice regularly on a variety of subjects. Do let me know what might be of interest to you.
While a man would achieve a certain amount of satisfaction from just having something to rub against, a woman would not achieve emotional or financial security from the act, which are the typical requirements for her satisfaction.
Oh my, my, that had better be some Godiva chocolate in your pocket because I am PMS'ing and you just offered yourself up as the first male sacrifice of the month!
What makes you think that a hand to hold and money to burn are "typical requirements for her satisfaction"?
That same German Shepard you have been rubbing on might just prove to be 'enough to satisfy her' needs that you might not be considering.
First? Women do not have to shag or rub on another species to achieve "a certain amount of satisfaction" because what used to be the awesome bunny has evolved into something more fresh and delicate looking. Women are doing their part to Green the world too. Second? Some women choose to keep a dog like a German Shepard or a Rottweiler as her friend and defender because no matter how many times he might hump her leg, she knows that giving in, gives up all future control. Pecking order established. Third? She will FINALLY be able to clean the bathroom and have the toilet STAY clean because unlike a man, she can lock the door after she sends her loyal friend OUTSIDE to do his business.
ArguingWAristotleTiffApril 21, 2016 at 12:51#113710 likes
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Okay, we're [i]all[/I] dog fuckers, then: both men and women. And children too, because what the hey, we're already depraved beyond redemption.
ArguingWAristotleTiffApril 24, 2016 at 16:21#114240 likes
Interesting exchange of information and confirmation of hunch with my Primary Care Doctor.
Recently I shared an experience at my Doc's office meeting with a Nurse Practitioner, feeling like I had been almost 'profiled' as a drug abuser and to update you, I was being profiled but not just me personally.
I was miffed enough about the way I had 'not' been treated with the NP that I called and made an appointment with my Doc in the same office to talk about my concerns.
I must tell you that this particular Doctor was the man who changed my life when I was on OxyContin for 2.5 years. I saw him at an Urgent Care center because my Doctor at the time was closed on weekends and I was in desperate need of getting my meds refilled. If I went two hours past my scheduled dose, I would start withdrawing, my body would break out in cold sweats, I was unable to sit still, just could not get comfortable and then the nausea would set in. I was a mess if I was two hours past dose to the point that I couldn't even get out of my car to get my prescription filled, I would wait in the parking lot in my car, until the Pharmacy opened and they could dispense my refill that would be available that day, first in line.
So when I went to Urgent Care the Doc I saw (now my current Doc) expressed his concern for me having been on the Oxy for so long that it was an addiction, not pain. I explained that when I went to my regular Doc and said 2 times a day dose was not cutting it and I needed to find a way off this med, his solution was to add a dose so I was taking it every 8 hours. Then when I asked my Doc how to get off OxyContin, he told me that I could just quit, cold Turkey, at anytime. Horrified, the Urgent Care Doc suggested strongly that I go see a Pain Specialist who also is an Addiction Specialist and I did. The rest you already have a good grasp of from my prior posts but I told you that because I need to tell you this.
The exchange the Doc and I had two weeks ago was about how the new DEA guidelines regarding prescribing narcotics, especially Opiates such as OxyContin, Percocet, Darvocet and all it's 'cousins' in the medicinal family, being cracked down on at the same time that there is a Heroine epidemic in the homeland. We both agreed that the "unintended consequences" or "unforeseen consequences" as the government will claim, is that all those Doc's who were overprescribing are going to cut back so dramatically, that they are literally going to be driving up the use and demand for Heroin.
The solution is much more complex than just cutting off their patients and the current Doctor's under scrutiny are referring patients, that need to be on anything more than what the government says is within the acceptable guidelines, to Psychiatrists and Pain Management Doctors. The Doc and I both shook our heads at what the government is trying to achieve and more importantly how they are going about it. Doc said that Arizona is 51st in Mental Health Services out of the 50 states, so he doesn't expect much luck with that approach and Pain Specialists are going to be under the same scrutiny he is. So the patient is left with few options and we both agreed that unfortunately we are going to see a rise (if that is even possible beyond where it is now) in the use of Heroin and the overdoses that will follow.
I realize it is too soon to say with certainty and I would never judge another person's choices in managing their pain but I have listened to what they have said about the beloved Prince and how he lead such a clean and healthy life. But unfortunately for me, I see the tell tail signs, the sweats and pacing outside of a Pharmacy, the feeling like being under a massive onset of the flu but baby, just one dose, just one single dose of Opiates and it is like some plugged you back into life. The flu symptoms disappear within hours and you feel normal again.
Was it an Opiate overdose in the form of a pill or in the easier to get, harder to control it's dosage, Heroin? Time will tell but I just have this nagging feeling that he might just be one of the first FAMOUS people, whose life was cut way too short (many non famous people are just as much at risk) as a direct result of this recent crackdown by the government on Opiates and all narcotics.
I am not by any means suggesting that any one person does not have the right to choose to take a narcotic or not, I am saying that beginning in 2000, OxyContin was being prescribed at such an astronomical rate, approved and often paid for by the government, that they too own a degree of responsibility, in SAFELY getting patients off these narcotics.
Just quit... withdrawal isn't so bad, you just have to remind yourself "no", allow for no plans, negotiations or compromises. Entertain, speak the mantra, and meditation on nothing but the holy "no", every 1.5 seconds for a few days, and then less and less frequently, but never not all at, until you die.
People don't get 'addicted' to antidepressants, but they do get acclimated. I take a small dose daily -- been on one or another for a long time (decades). I benefit from them, but as the 24th hour passes, especially by 6 hours past pill time, and I have forgotten, I begin to experience physical discomfort, a malaise. I've pushed it to a few days without taking a dose and felt really ill and mentally dysfunctional. Maybe in time I would feel normal again, at least physically, but the small dose of serotonin helps me avoid the pitfalls of chronic depression. And, of course, it avoids the deprivation downside.
Effexor, Surzone, et al aren't performance enhancing drugs like Adderall; I'd call it a performance normalizing drug.
ArguingWAristotleTiffApril 25, 2016 at 11:55#114290 likes
Reply to Wosret Thank you for your words of truth for they are helpful. Fortunately I have already "quit" and will stay that way, period. (L)
ArguingWAristotleTiffApril 25, 2016 at 12:19#114300 likes
You are right in that the body is constantly acclimating and over the past 20 years I have been transitioning from one anti-depressant to the next, when they are no longer effective, some get re-rotated because they become effective again with a couple years of a replacement drug. It is one vicious circle when you bring an anti-depressant on board but like you, it is something I function better on than not, so I remain on.
My concern is not so much for myself at this point because I have slayed the Opiate dragon, though I am FULLY aware that it is sleeping, never dead. My concern is for all of those people who have yet to do so, are going to be pushed out onto the street, to find what their body needs (not just craves) until they can get off Opiates safely without turning to Heroin. If it took me 2.5 yrs under an addiction specialists care, what are these patients going to do? I guess I should disclose that the Pain Addiction specialist who got me off Oxy with Suboxone was only permitted by the state, to have 30 patients on Suboxone at one time. There are not enough Pain/Addiction specialists to treat the Tsunami of patients that is headed their way. Again I ask: where does that leave the patient? Patients typically don't start out on a prescribed pain med to become an Opiate addict but many times that is the outcome.
I am very concerned about what is going to happen to the Heroin market here in AZ, when the high school kids can get a hit of smack for $4.00. Less than the cost of lunch at McDonalds and a lot more mind/body altering.
Just quit... withdrawal isn't so bad, you just have to remind yourself "no", allow for no plans, negotiations or compromises. Entertain, speak the mantra, and meditation on nothing but the holy "no", every 1.5 seconds for a few days, and then less and less frequently, but never not all at, until you die.
Just quit drugs, just get a job, just find the right person, just lose weight, just exercise, just volunteer more, just be more kind, just do it.
Donald J. Trump with two hands and two feet I would vote. In fact, if it was Kasich/Cruz/Trump vs Hillary/Bernie, I would vote with two hands and two feet for Kasich/Cruz/Trump.
Over here, in the last general election, because of our FPTP voting system, UKIP, who had the third highest number of votes, only gained 1 seat in parliament; whereas the Liberal Democrats and the SNP, who had the fourth and fith highest number of votes respectively, and whose combined total number of votes was less than UKIP's, gained a combined number of 64 seats. (Not a bad result in terms of the lack of UKIP MP's, in my opinion, but also not very democratic)
My post meant to say that the most radical candidates are leading and the most moderate trailing. This is the result of the primary system where you choose which party to vote in. That is, when I went to the polls, they asked if I wanted a republican or democrat ballot and then I chose the candidate from that party I wanted to represent that party in the election. The most ideological folks vote in the primaries and the most radical and uncompromising candidates get the advantage. The problem is that when it comes to the general election, the moderates who can get votes from both sides will have the advantage, yet they've been eliminated, and you have a polarized election with little middle ground.
I voted for Kasich in the republican primary, who is likely the most electable one, but he's dead in the water. Moderates don't bring people to the polls. They're boring I suppose. One thing Trump isn't, and that's boring.
Clinton on the other hand will win the nomination from an entirely undemocratic method. She used her insider status to effectively block any real challenger (leaving only a 70+ year old unknown socialist curmudgeon to run against her) and then secured the non democratic super-delegates to assure her of the nomination.
Say what you will of the mud slinging and incivility on the republican side, but it is democracy at its most basic unrefined level. The democrats, which hail themselves as the people's party, are looking awfully aristocratic. Hillary is being anointed, not elected, and I'd think that failure to garner popular support will hurt her in the general election.
Of course what I say is traditional wisdom, and this election cycle is anything but traditional.
If I were President, I'd build a wall to keep the Canadians out and make them pay for it. It'd be built out of ice in the winter and moose in the summer because that's the only stuff up there as far as I can tell. You guys don't even have good food. Who's ever heard of Canadian cuisine? I think you guys just eat casseroles that Edith or Mabel (or some other outdated white bread name) brings over for the potluck dinner. Even your whiskey is some sort of non-descript watered down tasteless stuff. You guys might want to consider paving Canada so that Americans will have somewhere to park and check their GPS to figure out how they got lost going so far north.
Oh yeah, I went there, ragging on Canada and how stupid you guys are. Deal with it.
Are they making fun of Americans for their failure to know about Canadian politics and culture or are they making fun of the Canadians for having such an irrelevant country that no one knows about them?
Also, if you listen to how the Canadians talk, you'll pick up on their stupid accent. I'm pretty far away from Canada, so I don't have to deal with their bullshit (thank God), but I can only imagine what the idiots in Montana and whatever else is way up there have to deal with when the Canadians accidently migrate too far south like a lost seagull or something does when it migrates too far north or whatever analogy I'm trying to fucking say. If I were a seagull, I'd fucking fly away from all this shit, but that's another story that has nothing to do with you, so butt the fuck out. You feel me?
Clinton on the other hand will win the nomination from an entirely undemocratic method...Say what you will of the mud slinging and incivility on the republican side, but it is democracy at its most basic unrefined level
Your whole two party money-driven system is this. But, yes, keep saying bad things about Hillary and the silly Dems because I totally agree..
Your whole two party money-driven system is this. But, yes, keep saying bad things about Hillary and the silly Dems because I totally agree..
All systems are money driven. There's just more money in the US.
I prefer mud slinging to backroom deals, which is what the Democrats have come up with. And, actually, had Trump not been sitting on a billion dollars, he'd have been quickly eliminated by a Republican backroom deal.
See Canadians are nice, it's why we're liked more.
So take off you hoser.
I was looking at a map once and saw Yellowknife and thought I'd like to go there, so I Googled what there was to do there and there were some fishing trips. I then looked up plane tickets and it was as expensive as going to Europe, and nothing against Yellowknife, but I'd rather be walking around the Louvre than walking in whatever there is up there. I then looked at Google Maps and thought about driving, but it'd take like three days, and nothing against Yellowknife, but if I'm going to drive three days, I'm going to drive out to California where the girls are warmer.
I've heard that Yellowknife is one of the best places to see the Aurora in the west, being the closest city of any size to the north pole on this side of the world.
I say we go. Let's come up with a date and time and all meet out there. Drinks are on me.
Lets make it bloody quick them because I am almost out of beer. It takes a round trip of at least 4 hours to go and get it, so I might as well take a couple of weeks driving to drink at your expenses.
All systems are money driven. There's just more money in the US.
Not really. We don't do this in Europe (see below). Our politicians do not generally degrade themselves by spending most of their time and energy begging donors for money over the phone. In fact, you don't really have politicians at all. You have salesmen.
Reply to Sapientia I watched his roast awhile ago. At the end he gives an apology for his douche-baggery, and tells us that our actions don't define us... I now understand that I'm the fastest runner in the world in my heart, even though I don't actually run.
My dog had been lying at my feet for a few hours and I thought how loyal she was until I thought maybe she was dead. Then I decided there really was no difference between loyalty and death, so I didn't check for a pulse.
Politics came up again at work today. Several colleagues expressed simpleton ring-wing views. Bloody right-wing populism... spreading like a disease... making dumb people dumber and more xenophobic, and distracting them from far greater exploitation. They lap it up and spew it out.
In other news, my feeling for a while now has tipped over to the end of the scale which finds engaging in argument more bothersome and annoying than rewarding. So I'm going to spend more time doing other things instead, like reading historical and/or political literature, or watching documentaries of the same.
Watched a documentary on the "rise and fall" of socialism, watched a couple of documentaries on the Chinese revolution and civil war, read a bit on ancient Rome...
Sorry guys, but I haven't even read your replies to me in the Plato vs. Aristotle discussion. It's on hiatus.
Yes, best cover up your ankles, ladies, lest ye offend that bastion of virtue, Saint Agustino The Responsible.
Where did I say this? It's less about dressing and more about behaviour. In fact I think women who dress showing a little bit of skin (not outright naked as some do) is good - shows feminine beauty!
Reply to Agustino Whaddaya mean "Where did I say this?"? I was merely responding in kind. Where did I say that hyper-sexualisation and irresponsible progressivism is the way to go? Don't answer that.
And yes, I may be lazy (gasp! A vice!), but at least I have peace of mind, so to hell with your precious virtue!
Reply to Agustino Is it not? Because I thought that peace of mind is the only good. Yep, murder and rape are fine, so long as it results in peace of mind.
There are more important things than virtue. Some things just ain't worth sacrificing for the sake of "virtue", in spite of your anticipated protestations. Especially for [I]someone else's[/I] notion of virtue.
Incoherent under the system I (and Socrates) present: "Wealth does not bring about virtue [arete - translated either excellence or virtue], but VIRTUE MAKES WEALTH AND EVERYTHING ELSE GOOD FOR MEN, both individually and collectively" - Apologia of Socrates
To use Kantian parlance, virtue is the ground of possibility of any good whatsoever, and nothing can be good without virtue; in fact once it is perceived that virtue is the ground of possibility of good, then it immediately becomes incoherent to think of any good without virtue - just as incoherent as it is to think of a triangle existing in the absence of any space/extension. That's why it does not make sense to, for example, sacrifice virtue in order to be with the woman you love - because she, and everything else are made good only as a result of virtue. That's also why religions advocate to love God FIRST, and only then love everything else - because God (virtue) is that which makes everything else good. This admits that there are other goods apart from virtue, but they are only good if virtue is present.
Reply to Agustino Importance is relative. What's important to me matters more to me than what's important to you. What's important to you, you'll no doubt declare to be objective, and mine merely illusorily, but that's a load of codswallop.
Also, I find it silly to call virtue "God" as if they refer to the same thing and are interchangeable. Virtue, my dear, is one and the same. Virtue is virtue and God is God. I can't stand all this God is love, God is virtue, God is whatever, nonsense.
Reply to Agustino No, nothing like that. That which we rightly call "virtue" is nothing other than those personal qualities of which we approve. God is just the name for what is typically conceived of as something else entirely. We already have a word for virtue; you don't need to give it a proper name, like you would a pet - let alone one which has so much theological baggage.
Importance is obviously relative to a subject or subjects, because things are only important inasmuch as they are important to someone or other, and not important in and of themselves. Furthermore, what's important to you might not be important to me - or as important. These are facts - facts which you might not like. You strike me as someone susceptible to wishful thinking. You wish for that which you find important to somehow override all else, so you proclaim it to be an objective truth, as if that will magically make it so. Then you have free reign to dismiss the values and opinions of others.
That which we rightly call "virtue" is nothing other than those personal qualities of which we approve.
That's what you may subjectively identify as virtue. Objectively, virtue is that which leads to the flowering of human potential. We may disagree what that human potential is, but one of us is certainly wrong.
Importance is obviously relative to a subject or subjects, because things are only important inasmuch as they are important to someone or other, and not important in and of themselves.
This is equivocation on the word subject. Subject in this case does NOT mean only person. What you really refer to is the grammatical subject of the sentence. To illustrate: "finishing this on time is important FOR THE PROJECT". So virtue is important for the fulfillment of human nature, and the fulfillment of human nature is important for rational individuals.
Furthermore, what's important to you might not be important to me - or as important.
I agree. But we're talking on two different levels now. It may be important to you to take blood pressure medicine, and not to me. But that doesn't change that what's important to the fulfillment of your nature qua human being is the same as what's important to me for the fulfillment of my nature qua human being - in this case the maintenance of our physical health.
I was at a mission committee meeting tonight and the chair brought up a plea for funds for a conference about racism that needed some money to get off the ground (Racism! What a simply marvelously novel idea!) It was going to discuss how the oppressed had been oppressed and by whom and how white privilege needed to be acknowledged with debilitating waves of guilt, checked at the door, and how one should beg some 16 year old student for mercy and forgiveness.
Both suggestions rankled me and rattled my cage. Especially "white privilege". Gag me with a spoon.
The trouble with these discussions of racism, white privilege, oppression, whose lives matter, which college buildings' names insensitively irritate sensitive young people, and so on is that all of this is is a waste of time.
That's what you may subjectively identify as virtue. Objectively, virtue is that which leads to the flowering of human potential.
In other words, what makes someone a better person: good personal qualities. But which personal qualities are good, and what actions constitute conformity with them, is subjectively determined. If there is such an objective truth behind-the-scene, I don't believe that you have recourse to it to prop up your moral judgement. In reality, those we call good are those of which we approve, and those we call bad are those of which we disapprove.
We may disagree what that human potential is, but one of us is certainly wrong.
No, we may disagree, but this entails nothing other than that our evaluations do not accord. You may be wrong relative to my set of values and moral judgement, and I may be wrong relative to your set of values and moral judgement, but it's wishful thinking and arrogance on your part to consider your judgement superior and authoritative.
This is equivocation on the word subject. Subject in this case does NOT mean only person. What you really refer to is the grammatical subject of the sentence. To illustrate: "finishing this on time is important FOR THE PROJECT". So virtue is important for the fulfillment of human nature, and the fulfillment of human nature is important for rational individuals.
No, it's not equivocation. No, I wasn't "really" referring to the grammatical subject of the sentence. And no, that conclusion doesn't follow.
Importance only makes sense if it can be reduced to a subject, such as you or I.
I agree. But we're talking on two different levels now. It may be important to you to take blood pressure medicine, and not to me. But that doesn't change that what's important to the fulfillment of your nature qua human being is the same as what's important to me for the fulfillment of my nature qua human being - in this case the maintenance of our physical health.
The maintenance of our physical health is only important if someone or other values it, or something related to it, highly. It can only ever be important if it can be reduced to subjective valuation. Otherwise it makes no sense - unless perhaps you mean something other than importance, such as the necessity of meeting certain conditions to achieve some end. Importance only enters the equation if something is valued, and that requires a subject.
In your example, if you need to take blood pressure medicine in order to maintain your physical health, but don't think that it's important to take blood pressure medicine, then that's only an issue if you didn't realise its importance to you, or if it is important to someone else that you take your blood pressure medicine. Otherwise, if taking blood pressure medicine is not of import to you, then that's all there is to it. It's not set in stone that maintaining one's physical health should take precedence over other things, or even that it should be highly valued. There is no God given commandment: Thou Shalt Maintain Thy Physical Health. And it's not always or necessarily in one's best interest to do so. Nor will doing so always or necessarily make one a better person in an ethical sense.
It may well be human nature to attempt to maintain our physical health, but that says nothing about value, virtue or morality. To assume that connection is to commit the naturalistic fallacy.
I don't dismiss values and opinions of others, I've just argued that values are objective relative to human nature - and not up to anyone's decision.
Why wouldn't you dismiss (or reject, if you prefer) the values and opinions of others if you know them to be objectively wrong or false? I mean only those which do not accord with this supposed objective standard, which presumably and conveniently accords with your own standard, rather than mine or that of others. Are your views on homosexuality and promiscuity in line with this "objective standard"? If that's what you claim, I find that laughable.
In other words, what makes someone a better person, which are good personal qualities, but what personal qualities are good, and what actions constitute conformity with them is subjectively determined.
No - not exactly. In other words what makes someone a more complete human being, which is something that can be determined objectively. What makes one a more complete human being is not subjectively defined at the level I am talking of. For example, engaging in activities which help ones community, forming friendships, and so forth are universal and objective goods, regardless of what anyone thinks. You may help the community by working as a doctor, and I as a lawyer, but we're essentially fulfilling the same human potential, albeit in different ways. The ways are up to the person - subjective as you say, but the human potentials which are manifested through the ways are objective.
You may be wrong relative to my set of values and moral judgement, and I may be wrong relative to your set of values and moral judgement, but it's wishful thinking and arrogance on your part to consider your judgement superior and authoritative.
I don't consider my judgement authoritative, you are free to reject it if you so desire, although I do think you would be wrong to do so. I do consider it superior, seeing that I can find no reason to cast it into doubt, nor have you provided me with any. When our evaluations do not accord, all that means is that one of us has made a mistake in judgement - one of us is simply wrong about human nature.
The maintenance of our physical health is only important if someone or other values it, or something related to it, highly. It can only ever be important if it can be reduced to subjective valuation.
No, it is important even if someone or other doesn't value it. It's important to what it means to be a human being, whether you think so or not - it's important to the fulfilment of human nature. You can be a depressive and not be concerned at all about your health. But that doesn't mean your health ceases to be important, only that you are making a mistake in judgement about your own nature.
In your example, if you need to take blood pressure medicine in order to maintain your physical health, but don't think that it's important to take blood pressure medicine, then that's only an issue if you didn't realise its importance to you, or if it is important to someone else that you take your blood pressure medicine
My point is clearly that preserving my health is objectively important to me, even if I can come to such a stage where I subjectively perceive it as unimportant. My nature cannot be fulfilled without it, even if I may mistakenly believe it can.
It's not set in stone that maintaining one's physical health should take precedence over other things, or even that it should be highly valued.
Right, it's set in human nature. Human nature is such that it requires physical health for its fulfilment - for its thriving. Whether I think so or not doesn't change this fact. Human nature will still require physical health for its fulfilment.
It may well be human nature to attempt to maintain our physical health, but that says nothing about value, virtue or morality. To assume that connection is to commit the naturalistic fallacy.
No it isn't. One only commits the naturalistic fallacy when one assumes WITHOUT FURTHER ARGUMENT that there is a necessity between something being natural and something being moral. Promiscuity is natural for example. It doesn't necessarily follow that it's also moral. Transexuality is unnatural - it can however, if it is argued for the connection between the premises, follow that it is also immoral. In this case I simply defined morality or ethics to be the study of that which fulfils human nature - that's what I mean by moral.
I mean only those which do not accord with this supposed objective standard, which presumably and conveniently accords with your own standard, rather than mine or that of others.
I think it accords with mine, we can talk about it and see if it accords with yours better than with mine :)
Are your views on homosexuality and promiscuity in line with this "objective standard"?
As far as I can see about promiscuity yes. I have no reason to doubt that. And by the way, I'm not quite sure what the truth is regarding homosexuality and I have stated this before. I stated that I THINK homosexuality is wrong, although I may be wrong. I also stated that I think it is a relatively minor sin, and that the much bigger and definite sin is promiscuity (and of that I'm certain).
No, it's not equivocation. No, I wasn't "really" referring to the grammatical subject of the sentence. And no, that conclusion doesn't follow.
Importance only makes sense if it can be reduced to a subject, such as you or I.
Yes it absolutely is. I've illustrated through the use of everyday language that we can say something is important to non-persons. Furthermore, yes ultimately it will have to be important for a (or multiple) person. But a person simply is a representation of their nature. Thus it makes no sense to say, assuming the person is rational, that something is part of their nature and yet is not important to them. To be part of their nature in this case simply means that it matters and is important for them objectively speaking. Otherwise I wouldn't say it's part of their nature in the first place.
The trouble with these discussions of racism, white privilege, oppression, whose lives matter, which college buildings' names insensitively irritate sensitive young people, and so on is that all of this is is a waste of time.
I agree. In Muhammad Ali's time, everything white was good and everything black was bad. In our time, everything black is good, and everything white is bad. Things have only superficially changed.
ahhh, I see. You played the race card (a spade, naturally). The reputation of the black member is largely due to selection bias on the part of photographers and pornographers, but not entirely. Blacks might have a slight edge if you average it all out, but it isn't as much as an inch, angry or otherwise. One study said Pacific Islanders had the biggest (probably sample bias). According to manufacturers, only 6% of men actually need extra-large condoms. (I have come across a few of these members. They are too large to be good for anything unless one is a masochist. One white hung-like-a-horse guy reported that a big dick was a nuisance -- too visible and it attracted the wrong kind of attention. Partners were interested in his dick, not him. "Hey you, I'm up here." The biggest dick I every laid a hand on was white, a university economics teacher (probably sample bias). In one of my former lives I was a condom distributor. Every Harry, Dick, and Tom thought for sure they needed the extra-large Trojan Magnum.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 05, 2016 at 12:13#116230 likes
Not to interrupt the methods of measuring appendages, but I just wanted to bitch about the heat out here. The Internet is melting at about 4:00 everyday (hmmm just about the same time the East coast is getting home, clogging up the net with their home machines) which is usually a pain in the arse but not today my friends.
No, today we shall be celebrating Cinco De Mayo by letting the Tequila flow and lots of Ole'!
8-)
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 05, 2016 at 12:19#116240 likes
Reply to Sapientia He wanted it outlined, not just underlined:
________________________________________
|Some things are more important than virtue.|
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 05, 2016 at 12:43#116260 likes
To those like Elizabeth Warren who believe that Trump will destroy our nation if he becomes President and are willing to do ANYTHING to keep him from office, please remember this beauty from my dear Freddy.
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."
Now that Trump should have clear sailing into Port Cleveland this summer (the Republican nominating convention) the New York Times took a few inches of column to wonder how they could have been wrong about something like this. They blamed cell phones screwing up their national polls.
No, that's not it. The problem, I submit, is that the New York Times, and others, are classic "elite media" and think they know what is really going on in the public mind. They know what is going on in their readership's minds, more or less, but most people don't read the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, or the Chicago Tribune. Even if 'elite media', these are 'home town' newspapers and not everybody in the 'home town' reads them (there are other papers).
Elite media don't have a lot of contacts among the non-elite citizenry. The NYT doesn't know much about the police that patrol the streets around the New York Times building, or the construction workers that built their building a few years ago, or the workers who maintain the building's machinery.
On the Democrat side, the Times has led off most of their stories about Sanders' latest win with a couple of paragraphs about how this latest win won't put Clinton at risk. If Sanders lost a state, then "it's all over for Sanders". The editors and writers of the NYT are entitled to have an opinion, of course. I've heard that taking opinion as fact can lead one astray.
A lot of Americans are now, and have been, unhappy with national and international policy. Most of them are submerged into a "silent majority" (sic) which is silent only if one doesn't bother to listen.
One doesn't have to BE a poor white or young underemployed debt-laden college graduate, etc. to understand what these people are thinking. A newspaper does have to have numerous contacts in these groups, though, and consult them often IF they want to know what the Proles are thinking.
Unwanted cultural change, unemployment, major debt and a small income, competition from illegal immigrants, and a dozen other issues aren't phenomena that characterize the personal lives of elite media staff. The lives of upper levels professionals are pretty well set. Yes, they could be put into disarray, but it usually isn't systemic, and they have far more resources to cope.
Conclusion: don't count on the New York Times to tell you what's going on in your down-market, low class, underpaid world.
Out here in the sticks, I didn't get elected to the local council. Again. I keep standing for the Green Party. It must be worthwhile or I wouldn't keep doing it. That reasoning, if reasoning it be, doesn't always seem so clear on the day of defeat.
"Hillary Clinton Gives U.F.O. Buffs Hope She Will Open the X-Files"
Known for her grasp of policy, Mrs. Clinton has spoken at length in her presidential campaign on topics as diverse as Alzheimer’s research and military tensions in the South China Sea. But it is her unusual knowledge about extraterrestrials that has struck a small but committed cohort of voters.Mrs. Clinton has vowed that barring any threats to national security, she would open up government files on the subject, a shift from President Obama, who typically dismisses the topic as a joke. Her position has elated U.F.O. enthusiasts, who have declared Mrs. Clinton the first “E.T. candidate.”
Hmm... "Against Moral Objectivism". Will have to check that out at some point, and maybe even get involved. Although I want to focus more on another issue that I've been considering, and which I might create a discussion on. It's more political than philosophical (although the two are of course related).
Oh, and @Agustino I'm not really bothered by the fact that Hume apparently didn't have much to say on the subject of the Industrial Revolution.
TheWillowOfDarknessMay 19, 2016 at 07:33#119000 likes
Reply to Agustino That's never been the issue. Hume's philosophy is what we might term "anti-traditionalist." With respect to epistemology, Hume's philosophy denies notion that states of the world continue into perpetuity by their nature.
Hume's philosophy undoes is the assumption that, "by nature," anything will be into the future; it refutes the idea that there is anything logically necessary about human way of life: the notion of a world founded in tradition. It's is this to which you are reacting against in Hume's philosophy, not misreadings of Hume as a "global skeptic" by modern readers.
You can't stand to let your ethics stand on their own. Despite your protests of being "merely rhetorical," your appeals to "nature" are what you genuinely believe. Deep down you think humans have a logically necessary way of life, such that anyone must belong to it, even if that's not how they exist in a moment. What you are afraid of is not global scepticism, but rather an epistemology which denies logical necessity to our existence and a way of life - that which makes your arguments those of ethics rather than an inevitable outcome of existence.
TheWillowOfDarknessMay 19, 2016 at 07:57#119010 likes
Reply to Sapientia Bleh, it' just making my insides sag and knot. It's the stubborn offenders too; I can't be bothered to object to their nonsense. They'll just put their head down and deflect anything I say into the nonsense bin they built in the corner.
No Hume actually advocates for a world founded in tradition and NOT on philosophy. I don't know what crankery you're on about, but David Hume was a conservative (some would even say the father of conservatism before Burke) and a skeptikos. Skeptics relied on CUSTOM, remember Pyrrho? What Hume hated was the philosophical replacement of custom - Hume would have hated the Marxists, the progressives, etc. And yes, he would have also hated religious believers who tried to use philosophy to impose their way of life on other people and thereby change the customs of the place.
What you are afraid of is not global scepticism, but rather an epistemology which denies logical necessity to our existence and a way of life - that which makes your arguments those of ethics rather than an inevitable outcome of existence.
There is no logical necessity to morality, because it is based on freedom and cannot exist except for the existence of freedom. But morality is objective - in the sense that it is always true, regardless of what people think. Moral standards are always real standards.
TheWillowOfDarknessMay 20, 2016 at 09:00#119990 likes
Reply to Agustino That's not what I mean by "anti-traditionalist." The point is Hume denies the "sacred," whether conservative or progressive in ethics. He considers the possibility of everything, including any proposed moral tradition, even if he doesn't end up agreeing it. What irks you about Hume is not (misattributed) global scepticism, but his refusal to discount possibility.
What you want to do is eliminate any thought of the possibility of an alternative ethics system or that the one you are presently using might be mistaken at some point. You don't even want people to think a possibility that, for example, adultery might not be immoral. What you are concerned about is embedding a moral tradition so deeply within in our aesthetic lives the we can't even think of a possibility it might not be true. Your position is exactly the anti-Pyrrhonic dogmatism which is the antitheses of Hume's philosophy.
Agustino:There is no logical necessity to morality, because it is based on freedom and cannot exist except for the existence of freedom. But morality is objective - in the sense that it is always true, regardless of what people think. Moral standards are always real standards.
So you say, but your arguments constantly indicate otherwise. You are always assign people a "moral" or "perfect" nature before or regardless of whether they have it. When talking about people who commit wrong, you speak about the moral version of themselves as if it's embedded within them, just hidden away before its inevitable reveal. In your heart you dismiss the possibility some people will never be perfect, will never be moral.
Your delusion is so strong it even has you believing confessions and repentance obtained through torture; the very anti-thesis of morality and freedom: the idea that you can somehow force people into moral action and repentance be removing their choice. Moral truths are, indeed, objective and always turn. People just don't always follow them, no matter how much you try to force them to. Here you failure is not to understand the significance of moral truth, but rather of choice, freedom and the people in the world. So obsessed with the presence of perfection, you are blind to everyone and everything which is not. (i.e. everyone, including yourself).
The point is Hume denies the "sacred," whether conservative or progressive in ethics.
"Hume saw the establishment of property as the founding act of civil society, and as we have seen, he explicitly compares this act to religious ritual and views our regard for property as 'sacred' (Enquiry Regarding the Principles of Morals 199, Treatise 524)" - cited from Donald Livingston's Philosophical Melancholy and Delirium pg 38.
In your heart you dismiss the possibility some people will never be perfect, will never be moral.
I don't dismiss it, I am aware of it. But what does the possibility that they will never be perfect or moral have to do with their potential to be perfect or moral? I claim they all have this potential, even if some may never reach it.
Your delusion is so strong it even has you believing confessions and repentance obtained through torture; the very anti-thesis of morality and freedom: the idea that you can somehow force people into moral action and repentance be removing their choice.
No I didn't claim such a repentance has to be believed. But such a fake repentance preserves the sanctity of our justice system, and of our society, and it is thus better than its absence. And no, I don't believe that serial killers can be forced into moral action and/or repentance. That's not primarily why I suggested torture as a PUNISHMENT (not as rehabilitation) for them - I suggested it in order to protect the sacredness of our society which is threatened by the unimaginable crimes that they commit AND by their arrogant and prideful attitude. Torture may not make them better people, and it will not undo the wrong they have done - but it will shatter their arrogant and prideful attitude, which is enough to protect the sacredness of society.
Here you failure is not to understand the significance of moral truth, but rather of choice, freedom and the people in the world. So obsessed with the presence of perfection, you are blind to everyone and everything which is not. (i.e. everyone, including yourself).
No I am for people striving to be perfect, even if they fail. We all fail. But at least trying to. That much is possible. Someone who is hurt, may become depressed, may even commit suicide because of their wife's adultery for example - do you think such a person deserves to suffer so because of another? Do you not think that he ought to have a means to defend himself, legally - probably through financial compensation and the recognition by society of his suffering and the wrongness of it? Do you think this is too much to ask for - decency and the right to live a protected life in the bosom of society, which at least takes a stand against what is wrong, instead of merely letting it go by?
TheWillowOfDarknessMay 22, 2016 at 01:03#120580 likes
Reply to Agustino In ethics, there is no "try." One does or does not. We can't strive to perfection if we fail. That's just an excuse: "But I tried not to commit adultery... I was trying my hardest to be prefect"- not even the relativist moral nihilist asserting global scepticism would fall for that.
By definition, there is nothing of perfection in those moment, just abject failure. Nothing can undo this injustice. Torture, jail, financial compensation, recognition of suffering does nothing for this issue. Something is irrevocably wrong in the world. There is no defence for it and no way to undo the suffering it causes. We cannot be protected from injustice. We can only avoid taking part in it.
Society cannot give us protected life. There is no bosom which can insulate us from the possibility of injustice committed by human freedom. Existence is not necessarily moral, no matter what we do. Even if we were perfect, moral acts would still not be necessary. There would always be the potential of some injustice taking place.
"Deserve" has nothing to do with it. Suffering happens whether people ought to experience it or not. Some people will suffer from the unjust actions of others and there is nothing we can do about that. Killings, bashing, payouts, shaming and apologies don't bring back what's been lost. A man who has lost his wife to another still goes without his "true intimacy," no matter what punishment or compensation he is given. Injustice has no fix. We can't "make-up" perfection by doing something else.
You are attempting to bury our failures beneath an egoistical notion of perfection. You see our statements of intent ("trying" ) and assertions of value and force (torture, fake confessions, etc.,etc.) as if they can make-up for injustice. They cannot. We only have an imperfect world to love and we must do ethical actions to do what's moral. Trying for perfection is nothing but failure.
?Agustino In ethics, there is no "try." One does or does not. We can't strive to perfection if we fail. That's just an excuse: "But I tried not to commit adultery... I was trying my hardest to be prefect"- not even the relativist moral nihilist asserting global scepticism would fall for that.
Yes we can - striving implies that we have no reached perfection but nevertheless we aim for it. Do you think we can't aim for perfection, and hence cannot try? Why?
A man who has lost his wife to another still goes without his "true intimacy," no matter what punishment or compensation he is given. Injustice has no fix. We can't "make-up" perfection by doing something else.
Yes - so what? The purpose of punishment is not to bring back his wife. It is to punish the wrong-doer so that they recieve what they deserve.
You are attempting to bury our failures beneath an egoistical notion of perfection. You see our statements of intent ("trying" ) and assertions of value and force (torture, fake confessions, etc.,etc.) as if they can make-up for injustice. They cannot. We only have an imperfect world to love and we must do ethical actions to do what's moral. Trying for perfection is nothing but failure.
Do you know what justice is? I might send you to read some Republic so that you learn. Justice is to do your own role/duty, and not interfere with the roles/duties of others. It is having and doing of one's own, and receiving what belongs to oneself. The criminal deserves punishment - that is the fruit of the seed which he sows. Thus society must deliver punishment to the criminal, and honor to the righteous man! Such is a just society.
Discussions belong in threads not the shoutbox. (Discuss) I come here to find out how people are doing. I'm ok since you ask, just about to go to Paros for a singing holiday. La la la. (I'm a bass so those are the last three notes of 'I often think it's comical' by G and S)
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 23, 2016 at 12:32#121060 likes
Cheers mcdoodle! I feel the same way. It's good to hear you are doing well and are about to create some memories with song and travel. I sang competitively back in high school but since then it's the family and whomever might be around while I am cooking or trying to wake the house.
I am doing better now that I feel like I can jump back into the shoutbox ! I am a bit worried about how long Mayor has been away but hopefully he will jump on this thread with us!
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 23, 2016 at 12:37#121080 likes
Last week Trump accused Bill Clinton of being accused of rape and yet not a single word from the Clinton camp to deny it, as they do for every other comment that comes out of his mouth. Why? Why not a single question on the Sunday shows?
Has anyone managed to donate money to this place lately? I haven't been able to do so for months as the system doesn't seem to be working as it should (I don't get taken to Paypal when I try to resubscribe). I presume it's not just me.
Reply to jamalrob I get a message saying my payment has been received. And then I get redirected to my member page. But no Paypal page and nothing taken out of my account as far as I can tell.
Something is wrong with our site, and it isn't Hegel.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMay 26, 2016 at 13:08#123030 likes
For the last three years, I have been driving our youngest indian to school in the morning and back to the ranch, repeating in reverse in the afternoon, an hour each trip, totaling two hours a day on the road. I haven't taken the time to figure out how many hour trips it was but my God In Heaven, it is finally over! 8-)
When school resumes in the fall, he will be driving himself, leaving him to come home on his own. Freeing me up to return to college to finish my degree. 18 years dedicated by NicK and I, to raise the Indians with at least one parent at home, 24/7, has produced some amazing kids, an amazing family and a kick ass tribe! (Y)
We had to chose between having the kids while we had no money but were young enough to have boundless energy or wait until we were older and had boundless money but no energy. We went with the former and now I am in search of this boundless money! ;)
In all seriousness, my Grandparents did the same in that my Grandmother was not 'allowed' to work until my Mom went to college. My Grandmother went to work for International Harvester and was a woman who blazed paths in a man's world. Grampa only 'allowed' her to work outside the home, at IH, if she agreed to not use any of the money for household expenses but rather bank it for extra money in their retirement. O:)
For us? The money I earn will BE our retirement! I am up to the challenge! And when I find myself not up to the challenge, I will fake it till I make it! And when that doesn't work, I will turn to you, those who know how to bs better than I. 8-)
A moderately amusing diversion: Kim Jong Un Looking At Things on Tumblr
"and now a letter from the editors:
?
it has come to the attention of kjulat management that a previous posting, looking at a swan boat, did not meet the strict quality guidelines that kjulat readers have come to expect. while the object in the center of the frame was indeed a very pretty swan boat, the dear respected leader was looking upwards, perhaps towards the sky for the purpose of protecting the korean people from floating imperial aggression. whatever thing the supreme commander of the korean people’s army was looking at, we shall endeavor to report upon it accurately.
?
the personnel responsible for this error, whom the korean people regard as worse than dogs, regret their indiscretions before the world and have been ordered to spend 22 days reflecting upon the ways in which they have failed the juche idea."
It occasionally has some good stuff, but much of the time I find it embarrassingly bad or downright ugly, in both style and politics. It can be unwittingly funny though. One of Eileen Jones's film reviews is subtitled "The communists in the Coen brothers’ Hail Caesar! are silly caricatures, but the film upholds basic Marxist premises" :D
Reply to jamalrob I put together a batch of links to several left wing magazines several months ago, including Jacobin. None of them have been entirely satisfactory. Their "Marxist street cred" is one thing, but the main problem is that they all grind the same axe until it is dull. Uninteresting. Repetitive. Unimaginative. Predictable. Not informative--at least not informative about aspects of society I want to know about. They are not all bad, and maybe I no longer fit their target audience anymore.
Granted, a strike by telephone workers (Verizon's, currently) is relevant. But it isn't revolutionary, and it doesn't really merit the heavy duty rhetoric used in reportage.
Leftist publications (and not only them, of course) tend to take the same approach to every issue they cover -- If it's important to one small oppressed group, it's an issue we must all salute. Every battle is urgent and critical, requiring militant support and non-negotiable demands, etc. And the rightwing equivalents on the other end of the spectrum do the same thing, of course, and are equally tedious.
I cancelled my subscription to the New York Times today. Partly to save some money, but also from fatigue with their content. Somebody jokingly said that if a meteor was going to hit the earth in a month and destroy all life on earth, the New York Times' Headline would be "WORLD TO END: Women and Minorities will be Disproportionately Affected."
I've been thinking about cancelling for quite a while. The newspaper is pitched to an economic stratum to which I do not belong, and I am tired of it. I am also tired of the NYT's editorial stance. It's liberal, which is more or less OK, but it's also Clintonian. Each news story about Sanders' progress is written in the context of "But Clinton is still ahead, and that's what matters". And sometimes there is a kind of denatured, post-national approach to culture which I find extremely irritating. Yesterday there was an editorial about what it means "to be German". The editorialist offered no definition herself of Germaneness. One might conclude that in her view, "being particularly German" of necessity means Nazi, anti-semitic, racist, and so on. So real Germans, in her view, are pro immigration, very welcoming to Islam, and so on and so forth. Germanness, Frenchness, Dutchness, Itialianness, Finnishness, Englishness, Greekness, etc. has no commitments to its own heritage. If it does, then it's elitist, racist, Islamophobic, imperialistic, and so on. Bah, humbug!
You might have missed the fascinating discussion of toilet utilization by transgendered persons. There was also the "Should torture be a punishment for horrendous crimes?" business. There was a lobby for horrendous torture being used for instructional punishment. You know, the old Gestapo methodology. Not out of fashion in some quarters, it seems.
Hi, everyone. I like what you've done with the place. I'm known as "Hoo" on PF. As shmik noted above, PF has degraded significantly. On the other hand, TPF is a little quiet. But TPF has a great look and feel. I'd like to see this place take off. I'm sometimes amazed that philosophy forums aren't simply swarmed with great conversations.
Mayor of SimpletonMay 29, 2016 at 10:15#124000 likes
You might have missed the fascinating discussion of toilet utilization by transgendered persons. There was also the "Should torture be a punishment for horrendous crimes?" business. There was a lobby for horrendous torture being used for instructional punishment. You know, the old Gestapo methodology. Not out of fashion in some quarters, it seems.
Sounds like a typical election year in the USA.
I suppose there was a religious spin to it all. Probably less to do with theology and more to do with loving/caring/self-justified Bible thumpers demanding death to anyone who isn't like themselves ormeeting the standards of the god they invented in their own image. In short... philosophy need not bother.
As for the Dostoevskyish debate of "crime and punishment"... was there the great appeal as to what exactly is "torture" and "horrendous crime"... probably hinting that torture is maybe itself a "horrendous crime"?
:-d
Meow!
GREG
Mayor of SimpletonMay 29, 2016 at 10:24#124010 likes
PF has degraded quite a bit. TPF never really took off. Not the greatest state of affairs for philosophy forums.
I sort of had that fear.
Prior to the seeling of the old place, it seemed to have a strong decrease in, well... engaging conversation. The slipt probably was at a vunerable time for the old place.
The new place will take time and is indeed on rough waters. Sailing off to the new with vivid memories of the old is difficult, especially for creatures of habit.
My life has take quite a few twists and changes in the past 10 months. Nothing really worth mentioning here or anything to worry anyone here either, as really there is nothing one can do to help. Let's just say that my Sisyphus lost his grip on a few stones and they rolled right over him (at high velocity) on the way down. He's been shoving fewer stones up hill recently and just trying to recover from the past impact rolling stones. I suppose he's gathered a bit of moss.
My only outlet for "philosophy" has been a few select people in my life and my anthropological investigations into Facebook. :-O
Meow!
GREG
Mayor of SimpletonMay 29, 2016 at 10:25#124020 likes
It's Memorial Day here.
We always seem to be at war somewhere, and it is just not our dead, but as is in the case of Iraq, I saw the figure 650,000 civilians died in that senseless war.
Reply to Cavacava "We always seem to be at war somewhere" is a consequence of the US being the underwriter for the security of the western economy (cop of the world). Somebody is going to play this role. It used to be the British. It has been us since WWII. The Chinese are next, most likely. After WWII we were very afraid that the communists in the Soviet Union (later China) would usurp our role. If we had not held our ground, they probably would have -- or at least, they would have tried. Now the Chinese are in a better position to do what the USSR couldn't quite manage. We are already resisting Chinese moves.
Proxy wars have been fought instead of the Titans clashing. That's very bad for the proxy nations, but probably a good thing for the world as a whole. We don't really want to march into WWIII just yet.
Casualties in these proxy wars have been, and are likely to remain, quite asymetrical. They lose a lot, we don't lose too many. IF we go mano a mano, then we lose more troops of course: 50,000 in Vietnam. (The Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians lost a lot more--millions.) Mechanization and robotics allows us to target individuals without having to put a two legged sniper within range. It also allows the enemy to place very powerful remotely operated bombs.
It needs to be remembered that the US doesn't maintain a world-wide defense structure to achieve better network ratings during sweeps week. The wealth of the Uber-Rich is scattered around the world. They insist that it be protected.
Now, individually you and I may have little stake in the various flows of world trade, but policy was never built around what you and me wanted in the first place.
Mayor of SimpletonMay 31, 2016 at 08:23#124610 likes
Hi, everyone. I like what you've done with the place. I'm known as "Hoo" on PF. As shmik noted above, PF has degraded significantly. On the other hand, TPF is a little quiet. But TPF has a great look and feel. I'd like to see this place take off. I'm sometimes amazed that philosophy forums aren't simply swarmed with great conversations.
Grateful to anyone who can help make that happen! The main thing from my point of view though is maintaining quality, and while it is a little quiet, I think we have that in abundance here.
I think this place has taken off. There was more chatter over at PF, but much of it was directed at some poor straggler who happened upon us with some half baked theory. I'd then relentlessly attack the guy (or girl), Yaha and Sap would laugh, Baden would call me an asshole, Tiff would tell me I was still a good person, and then Baden would try to sex me up. It was my cycle of life, one bloody month to the next (so to speak).
I'd suggest the admins create a sacrificial lamb (name him "Fucker" or something clever like that) and send him in with a stupid post (like "I think America isn't great") and I'll hobble him and leave him helpless in Baden's bed in just his underwear.
I was talking to my cat yesterday and she sort of crouched down and hid behind a pillow waiting to pounce on some imagined prey. I was annoyed at her ignoring me and I feel like she sensed my anger, although I'm not completely sure she was concerned about it.
I was talking to my cat yesterday and she sort of crouched down and hid behind a pillow waiting to pounce on some imagined prey. I was annoyed at her ignoring me and I feel like she sensed my anger, although I'm not completely sure she was concerned about it.
Discuss.
OK, so your lack of maturity seems to be disrupting your relationship with your cat? :s
It's time to grow up to the facts of life.
She is not your cat, you are her food and comfort provider.
Now get used to that idea and suck up the sniveling snot. 8-)
There was more chatter over at PF, but much of it was directed at some poor straggler who happened upon us with some half baked theory. I'd then relentlessly attack the guy (or girl), Yaha and Sap would laugh...
Ah, those good old days of schadenfreude.
Hanover, you do remind me of Gerald. Remember him?
I was talking to my cat yesterday and she sort of crouched down and hid behind a pillow waiting to pounce on some imagined prey. I was annoyed at her ignoring me and I feel like she sensed my anger, although I'm not completely sure she was concerned about it.
Discuss.
I was discussing this with my cat, but just when I thought we were getting somewhere, I realised that my cat was in fact a crumpled top on the floor of my dimly lit room.
Afterwards, over tea and crumpets, my cat and I had a jolly old chuckle at my predicament.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 04, 2016 at 13:23#126750 likes
Reply to Hanover No matter what anyone says, no matter whom might disagree with you, know that how YOU feel matters! YOUR feelings are valid and need no explanation, to anyone, especially those that 'sex you up'!
"I would like to be remembered as a man who won the heavyweight title three times, who was humorous, and who treated everyone right," he wrote.
"As a man who never looked down on those who looked up to him, and who helped as many people as he could. As a man who stood up for his beliefs no matter what. As a man who tried to unite all humankind through faith and love.
"And if all that's too much, then I guess I'd settle for being remembered only as a great boxer who became a leader and a champion of his people. And I wouldn't even mind if folks forgot how pretty I was."
?Hanover
No matter what anyone says, no matter whom might disagree with you, know that how YOU feel matters! YOUR feelings are valid and need no explanation, to anyone, especially those that 'sex you up'!
Tiff, how can you defend a guy that thinks he owns a cat. Although, maybe he is from Alf's planet and he bought it in the supermarket.
Sup guys, long time no see. Didn't know we were moving out until now. I miss you guys and gals. xD
Welcome home!
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 07, 2016 at 12:28#127940 likes
Oh my, I missed two of the best Birthday celebrations in life!
Happy Belated Birthday Hanover!!!!
Wishing you the best of love, life and laughter in the new year ahead! Cheers!
Hippty! Hoppity! Happy Birthday Mayor!!
Wishing you the best of success in the year ahead, the wind at your back as you ride and the power to tolerate another US election cycle! Cheers!!
I have become an anti-threadist. But given that threads aren't worth starting, are they worth continuing?
Threads are worth starting, despiteyour latest detachment from creating them. So yes, regardless if you think threads are worth starting, they are worth continuing, until...one of three things happen.
There comes a time when threads have run their course, have gotten dissected enough that there is a necessary end to a thread. The end can display itself three ways. 1) The responses become further and further apart in time but not necessarily in space 2) An explosive end where people leave the thread feeling misunderstood or invalidated in what they are thinking, likely to cross contaminate in a similar thread 3) The thread is so offensive it gets locked and stored away somewhere in Wales. ;)
:D Sir, you have no idea how many men think they umm... own a cat! :D
Big Cheshire cat grin. >:)
Mayor of SimpletonJune 08, 2016 at 10:51#128170 likes
Well...
... this really says it all.
"In California the sun isn't everything
No the sun isn't everything
There's just something about the light
That lets all of us think
That their problems aren't our problems
And that your problem isn't my problem
That her problem isn't his problem
But let's just pretend
That we're all in this together"
Threads are worth starting, despiteyour latest detachment from creating them. So yes, regardless if you think threads are worth starting, they are worth continuing, until...one of three things happen.
There comes a time when threads have run their course, have gotten dissected enough that there is a necessary end to a thread. The end can display itself three ways. 1) The responses become further and further apart in time but not necessarily in space 2) An explosive end where people leave the thread feeling misunderstood or invalidated in what they are thinking, likely to cross contaminate in a similar thread 3) The thread is so offensive it gets locked and stored away somewhere in Wales. ;)
Apathy, ennui, hurt, and aggression are indeed the inevitable end of every thread. You deny the premise you are invited to assume, and then provide an argument in favour of it. This is merely a way of distracting yourself from the conflict that arises from trying to deny the obvious. As you will no doubt deny the compassion of my pointing it out to you. ;)
Oh dear, I missed all the recent @Hanover fun. I guess I was too busy having a FANTASTIC holiday in Hong Kong to come up with a devastatingly witty addition to the general merriment.
Reply to Michael Just saw that news. Groundhog day. As I said before though it'll take many many more massacres before Americans do anything about gun control. Probably a waste of time rehashing the debate.
Ah yes, had we only passed better laws, we'd have eradicated terrorism.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 13, 2016 at 11:49#129550 likes
Or we could talk about this:
50 Americans.
"Fifty Americans perished today in Orlando, Florida. More than fifty Americans are still fighting for their lives, or recovering from their injuries. These Americans were met with violence and hatred; acts committed by a coward.
You’ll note I said Americans. I did not segregate, classify, label or otherwise place a silo around those who were attacked. Neither should you. To do so mitigates the gravity of the situation. It divides us, and in some small minds, will make it ok because it was “them.” That is the most UNAMERICAN mindset one can have, especially right now. Why?
Wake up! We are under attack. It is our freedom the enemy hates, and this enemy knows how we segregate ourselves. Even as we fight for unification and equal rights for all Americans, we still place ourselves in categories. This exposes a vulnerability that the enemy just exploited.
The best thing we can do is stand together, right now, as Americans. Show no quarter to our enemy, instead show a unified wall of pure American will and strength. You may just find that those self-imposed labels no longer matter after all.
It’s time to stop hating each other for our differences. Embrace those differences as what makes us uniquely American, and turn that anger and hatred toward those who would do us harm."
Oh dear, I missed all the recent Hanover fun. I guess I was too busy having a FANTASTIC holiday in Hong Kong to come up with a devastatingly witty addition to the general merriment.
You send us a stock photo from Hong Kong while sitting sadly in your hovel fighting a rat over your last scrap of bread.
Did someone actually suggest that the massacre was less significant because of the sexual preference of the victims?
No but have you seen any pictures washed with the American Flag?
My point is that this was an attack on the LGBT community, America itself and the values we hold dear and many that outrage the rest of the world. Hate will not win this one as Americans, we are better than that.
ps...now I am off to camping in the woods without wifi for a couple days so I won't be able to reply, it is just my current thoughts.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 13, 2016 at 12:00#129610 likes
No but have you seen any pictures washed with the American Flag?
What I think, in the back of my mind, is that any gun related massacre will always seem a bit more justified the world over, not necessarily here in the USA, that suggests that it is almost a self induced consequence because of our gun laws or lack there of.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 13, 2016 at 12:04#129620 likes
Reply to Hanover I'm actually kind of chuffed you reckon the photo is stock level. I didn't even have a tripod at the time. Wanna see more of my masterpieces?
Reply to Michael No, what will happen is that once you take my guns, you will tax me excessively for my tea. First it's tea, then it's hats, and I'll be damned if I can't smartly sport a hat for a reasonable price.
Let's keep this mostly spoiler-free, but HOLY SHIT did you guys see last night's Game of Thrones episode? Brutal. Like a medieval version of Saving Private Ryan.
Catbird, Catbird, haven't you heard?
Catbird, Catbird, come and say a word.
Catbird, Catbird, fly down from your tree.
Catbird, Catbird, I beseech thee.
Reply to Baden I only went to a really cheap $7 a night place. Can't remember the name, but I'm guessing you're going to want something a little more comfortable than what you'd get for that?
Going anywhere else in Cambodia? I loved Siem Reap.
Reply to Michael Yeah, I'm happy to pay 50 bucks for a decent room. Been burned a few times by booking.com recently. Anyhow if you've got any more recommends other than hotels pass 'em on. Hoping to do some street photog there. Cheers.
Reply to Michael I should really do Siem Reap too. Got 5 days in the country. Rest is open but probably mostly Phnom Penh. Will be doing beach stuff when back in Thailand.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 24, 2016 at 13:26#134670 likes
Reply to Baden Do you know of Scott Neeson? I have struck up a friendship with Scott and some of his Social Workers, so if you could stop by CCF and say "Hi and Huggss" from Arizona, I would SO appreciate it! (Y)
Gawd, 90 degrees, high humidity, and prospects for storms this afternoon. I think I'll skip the Gay Pride in the Park bit. Besides, it's too, too... boring.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 27, 2016 at 13:24#136080 likes
You are kidding right? :s
Fast forward to the year 2016 :D
Have you not seen the Air B&B commercials, about not just visiting another country but actually living another country, if only for a night? 8-)
Does Atlanta not have cable tv? :P
For all you know, your children might be renting out the basement to some summer fling girls looking for a place to crash for the night! :-O
If only my kids were entrepreneurial enough to rent out my basement. Currently they are purely an expense.
I like staying at Holiday Inn wherever I go in the world. It's a slice of US in middle of wherever you are. If you complain about service in a US hotel, it's a bit of a different experience than when you complain to a local. Just saying.
If only my kids were entrepreneurial enough to rent out my basement. Currently they are purely an expense.
I hear you on the expense part but even I rented out our back acre for horse people coming into town for the last Super Bowl! Yeah, not many as you can imagine but it was worth a shot!
I like staying at Holiday Inn wherever I go in the world. It's a slice of US in middle of wherever you are. If you complain about service in a US hotel, it's a bit of a different experience than when you complain to a local. Just saying.
I like the complaining idea and use it on occasion but I imagine I could throw down a tantrum that would need no words and my point would be made. I am AWESOME an sign language! ;)
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 30, 2016 at 13:35#136850 likes
A "racket" I LOVE! It has always been a great experience with a homey feel. I love, love, LOVE Air B&B and Uber too!
ArguingWAristotleTiffJune 30, 2016 at 13:46#136880 likes
Loretta Lynch and Bill Clinton 'ran into one another' at Phoenix Sky Harbor airport, she boarded his private plane and chatted about grandkids, golf and.....and.......
Hmm...... You don't suppose that slick Willy is trying to wax up the head investigator of his wife, Hillary, do you? >:O
This whole freakin system is rigged to keep the Dynasty going. Do you realize that if "IF" Hillary is elected President that it will be the first time in history that one President has marital relations with another President?
Scary, I know.
Do you realize that if "IF" Hillary is elected President that it will be the first time in history that one President has marital relations with another President?
Scary, I know.
I was sure LBJ had something going with Tricky Dicky, but what do I know?
I wonder, what do those people who write "G-d" say when they speak about God? Do they attempt to pronounce "G-d" or refer to him in some other way? The former would be pretty funny. Would you pronounce that as "Guh-duh", "Jee-dee" or "Jee-dash-dee"? The whole thing seems so silly.
What do You think?
Eight days and no Shoutbox chat. What would you guys do without me? I am the saviour of trivial chit-chat.
[Quote=BBC News]Four years ago, Leadsom urged the government to take a very different approach to workers rights' for companies with three or fewer employees:
She said: "I could envisage a situation where you had no regulation whatsoever, no minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights, no unfair dismissal rights, and no pension rights - absolutely no regulation whatsoever for the very smallest companies that are trying to get off the ground."[/quote]
Reply to Sapientia There's actually an answer to your G-d question. Orthodox Jews don't speak the Hebrew name of God outside of prayer and religious contexts. To do so would take his name in vain. In such contexts, they say "hashem" which literally means "the name." If they write God (G-d forbid), the document becomes sacred. One man's religion is another's nonsense I recognize.
Which is better: No jobs or a job with limited benefits?
Reply to Wosret Yes, it is a great plan to slowly erode workers rights. Who needs them anyway? Fairness and justice just get in the way of making more money for business owners.
That's beyond cynical... so the suggested plan is an insidious covert scheme to erode workers rights? Or the instant someone becomes inclined to begin even the smallest business they have given into the dark side?
It seems to me rather, that the more demands, regulations, and red tape to work for oneself, and employ a couple of friends favors big business, that despite heavy regulations are more and more immune depending on their size, even avoiding human rights, and worker rights, by outsourcing the work beyond the borders and jurisdiction of their nations.
The smaller and smaller the business, the less they can get away with, and probably the less they're trying to get away with.
That's beyond cynical... so the suggested plan is an insidious covert scheme to erode workers rights? Or the instant someone becomes inclined to begin even the smallest business they have given into the dark side?
Don't you know about the Conservative Party? That's what they do. They have a long track record of doing so and attempting to do so. You're not from the U.K, so your naivety is understandable.
It seems to me rather, that the more demands, regulations, and red tape to work for oneself, and employ a couple of friends favors big business, that despite heavy regulations are more and more immune depending on their size, even avoiding human rights, and worker rights, by outsourcing the work beyond the borders and jurisdiction of their nations.
Red tape?! You'd fit right in with the Conservatives with that lingo. This is not "red tape", these are fundamental workers rights: minimum wage, maternity or paternity rights, unfair dismissal rights, and pension rights.
The smaller and smaller the business, the less they can get away with, and probably the less they're trying to get away with.
They shouldn't be legally entitled to get away with treating workers as if they did not have these essential rights to protect them - regardless of whether or not they are actually doing so or trying to do so, which no doubt many were, at least in the past before the introduction of these workers rights.
You think that it's okay to yank away the safety net, for what possible reason other than that it is viewed as a hinderence to the profit of business owners? I say that that is wrong in three respects: it is the wrong way to look at it, it is wrong in principle, and it is wrong because of the detrimental consequences to employees and prospective employees.
No jobs. There is no virtue in work that makes it worth doing for its own sake. Unlike play. Let's give all the jobs to robots.
The virtue of work is in earning your own keep. Whether the work available to you is virtuous in some other regard might be an added benefit, but there's no virtue at all in not working and expecting someone else to provide for you.
What's better is not making those the only two choices.
But the reality is that sometimes those are the only choices. If you decided tomorrow to open a candy store and needed someone to help work a few hours a day so that you wouldn't have to work 80 hour weeks, it would seem a better option for both you and someone who needed those few hours a day to accept your employment. If, however, you were required to fund all sorts of benefits and to provide a high minimum wage, you could not afford to hire the person. That would neither benefit you nor the person who wanted the job, and maybe you couldn't stay in business as a result.
Why is the idea of giving folks the right to freely contract to do whatever they want such a bad thing? It's pretty ridiculous having to tell people they are victims when they insist they aren't.
There is no virtue in work that makes it worth doing for its own sake. Unlike play. Let's give all the jobs to robots.
Work not worth doing for its own sake? Gracious, what ever happened to the Protestant Work Ethic? Work itself enables and ennobles. So says Luther, et al.
Play is worth doing for its own sake? Probably, though all homo ludens all the time sounds ludicrous and tedious, too.
You want robots, and then the extinction of most people's raison d'être? It's probably on the way sooner than you think.
"Under capitalism, everything is reduced to the cash nexus. What is the cash connection for people who have no role to play in the creation of value (as in value, price, and profit)? They'll be lumpenized for sure.
Reply to Hanover No, we are in complete disagreement, I fear. Many people are not able to earn their keep, and everyone without exception relies on others all the live-long day.
Reply to Bitter Crank Look at it this way, protestant. Only the devil makes work for idle hands. One does not go to the trouble of dirtying the dishes to create some washing-up, rather one does the washing up because the dishes are dirty. One does not either wash the clean dishes because washing is good.
You think that it's okay to yank away the safety net, for what possible reason other than that it is viewed as a hinderence to the profit of business owners? I say that that is wrong in three respects: it is the wrong way to look at it, it is wrong in principle, and it is wrong because of the detrimental consequences to employees and prospective employees.
It's viewed as a hindrance to starting, and maintaining a successful business, and businesses that have three or less employees. Tiny businesses, that wouldn't have as good of a chance existing at all if there were too many obstacles. Do you disagree that this would be the case? As for the objection, I don't even understand what it is other than paranoia, and speculation. I don't find it plausible that this would open things up to wide scale worker abuse.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 10, 2016 at 13:27#138740 likes
No indeed, and only those who inherit wealth are in a position to do so.
Or those that chose to marry it. :-}
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 10, 2016 at 13:41#138750 likes
Am I missing where someone mentioned the police ambush in Dallas?
Am I THAT someone?
Simply? There is a rough match of blue vs black in the streets of America.
Simple details? Those sworn to protect us came under mortal attack, while protecting it's citizens who were peacefully protesting.
Latest rumor? The New Black Panthers are rising from within and the shooter in Dallas was a member of and stand for killing white men.
Possible? Probable?
Moral quandary: this is the first time a domestic robot intended to blow up devices was used to blow up a citizen. Is there a lawsuit coming from the manufacturer of the robot? Surely there will be a lawsuit coming from the shooters family for being blown up with a pound of C4. Which begs the question, is it fair play to attach a bomb to an extension of the 'law' that they were using to communicate with the shooter for hours and one minute you are talking and the next minute BAM! ????
To our resident attorneys: at what point did the suspected shooter give up his right to due process and the right to face his accusers?
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff The shooting in Dallas was practically an inevitability, given the heightened tension around the country. There is nothing remarkable in the shooter being killed, just in some aspects of the method.
I don't know what the layout of the parking ramp and the location of the shooter was. Apparently he was cornered, but he was apparently in a mutually 'out of line of fire' location. The robot solved the problem of ending the gunman's continued attack, but raised a potential problem for future uses of such a device.
Police can shoot if they, or the public are in danger (as they and the public were in this case). But how distant and safe from immediate harm might the police be in the future when a robot is used to kill a gunman, bomb-thrower, or suspected suicide bomber, etc?
It isn't this instance that is disturbing, it is future, more novel instances that are of concern, because there is no court guidance here. (Battlefield rules presumably don't apply to a late afternoon in Dallas, Denver, or Des Moines.) Will we find drones loaded with a pound of C4 explosives landing on cars that refuse to stop? Will robots be used in crowd control (robots not loaded with explosives, one would hope)? How far from the robot may the police actually be? May unsworn officers operate the robot?
If a drone or robot can reach somebody who isn't an immediate threat to the public or the police, is there any justification in using this technology? EVEN IF an officer would be authorized in using deadly force, if he or she were close enough?
I don't want battlefield conditions to apply to police. I don't want them subjected to rifle fire or bombs for which kevlar vests are not protective (which brings up gun control) and I don't want the police using battlefield devices on civilians. Supposing the robot had been carrying something else: maybe a canister of tear gas and a percussive (not lethal) explosive. Surely that would have been distracting enough to provide an opportunity for the police to safely pounce.
I'm not worried about the gunman. He was doomed by his own actions. I don't want undesirable precedents set, and I don't want government policy moving in the direction of more and significant restrictions on liberty. You don't either, I'm guessing.
If you decided tomorrow to open a candy store and needed someone to help work a few hours a day so that you wouldn't have to work 80 hour weeks, it would seem a better option for both you and someone who needed those few hours a day to accept your employment. If, however, you were required to fund all sorts of benefits and to provide a high minimum wage, you could not afford to hire the person. That would neither benefit you nor the person who wanted the job, and maybe you couldn't stay in business as a result.
Why is the idea of giving folks the right to freely contract to do whatever they want such a bad thing? It's pretty ridiculous having to tell people they are victims when they insist they aren't.
Driving down the rate of pay wouldn't be a good thing for anyone except those who gain a bigger surplus as a result. And I don't know how anyone can, in conscience, argue against rights such as the right not to be unfairly dismissed or the right to maternity leave.
It's viewed as a hindrance to starting, and maintaining a successful business, and businesses that have three or less employees.
And what makes a business successful? Profit. And at what cost? At great cost. Those three or less employees should be entitled to the same basic rights as anyone else in similar circumstances. Why do you think it would be okay for a small business owner to unfairly dismiss an employee, but not okay for a slightly larger business to do so? Starting a small business is a risky endeavour, but workers shouldn't pay the price by suffering abuses just to pave the way for a less bumpy ride to creating surplus wealth for the employer.
Tiny businesses, that wouldn't have as good of a chance existing at all if there were too many obstacles.
Yes, and I'm sympathetic to an extent, but some "obstacles" are there for good reason, and to even consider them primarily as obstacles is to not have your priorities straight.
As for the objection, I don't even understand what it is other than paranoia, and speculation. I don't find it plausible that this would open things up to wide scale worker abuse.
I get that you don't understand, and I'm not sure how much I can help with that. It is neither paranoia nor speculation. Like I said, the Conservatives have a track record for this sort of thing. Have you actually looked into this? I have lived through it and have seen it, although I only lived two years under Thatcher, when it was arguably at its worst, and I was just a baby at that time. Neither your ignorance nor your perception that it is implausible is enough to refute all of this.
I'm not a liberal or a conservative, I'm an anarchist. What I hold about anarchism is that it is the position with the most faith in humanity, the most confidence in the decency and competence of the common person, of the overwhelming majority of people. It's easier to mistreat, refuse to help or treat fairly, and turn a blind eye to the vicissitudes of others when they'res a lot of them in the same sorts of situations, and when there's a distance between us. Combine that with the observation the the more profit there is, the more greedy people get. It's apparently super fair to pay employees by the tens of thousands minimum wage, and make millions a day, whereas it's totally unfair to pay an employee a dollar under minimum wage, and make three times as much.
I don't think that people need to be forced to treat others decently and fairly, and small businesses with just a couple of employees will be working directly with them, and will not require government intervention, regulation, or to hire another employee just to deal with all of the bureaucracy. I don't care if what I'm saying makes me sound like this or that partisan... which is always itself a highly partisan accusation...
And what makes a business successful? Profit. And at what cost? At great cost. Those three or less employees should be entitled to the same basic rights as anyone else in similar circumstances. Why do you think it would be okay for a small business owner to unfairly dismiss an employee, but not okay for a slightly larger business to do so? Starting a small business is a risky endeavour, but workers shouldn't pay the price by suffering abuses just to pave the way for a less bumpy ride to creating surplus wealth for the employer.
Let's say a guy opens a little 'convenience shop' on a shoestring. The shoestring has to cover some equipment, stock, rent, etc. He might have put all his savings into it. There is no guarantee of profit or solvency, even, within a year. The risk is all his. He'll probably work most of the day that the store is open. IF he can hire someone, it will be for a short number of hours at the lowest possible pay--let's say $7 an hour. The owner himself may well be making no more than that per hour.
How can the owner pay more that the absolute minimum required, and give the worker an 8 hour day, plus health benefits, retirement, vacation, etc. He can't.
Lots of small businesses -- cabinet shops (custom woodworking), dog grooming salons, little stores, very small cafes, etc. are more or less one man, or family operations. IF they ever become profitable, it won't be right away (9 times out of 10). They may spend years only breaking even, if that.
Law usually exempts this sort of business from requirements that can not reasonably be met.
Sometimes people have immediate success, and start making lots of money quickly (and honestly). Chances are, they won't be able to make much money without expanding their labor force (like turning the little cabinet shop into a furniture factory). If they are so successful, they will quickly fall under the regulation intended for larger businesses.
Some rules cover everybody. You have to pay people the agreed upon wage and benefits. You can't legally operate a (literally) toxic, poisonous work place, even if your business is small.
Making $14 a day working for Joe's Grocery and Tobacco won't keep anybody alive, true enough. But the labor market is layered. The teenager who has not worked much probably isn't ready for an 8 hour shift with responsibility. Working 2 hours a day after school (while the owner rests after working for 10 hours, with 4 more to go) will be a good deal for all concerned. Eventually the teenager will be more experienced, more mature, and will want/need more money. He can then go looking for a better job.
Capitalism isn't a charitable operation. We should do away with it, but UNTIL WE DO, we are stuck with its terms of creating surplus value.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 11, 2016 at 12:56#138880 likes
I don't want battlefield conditions to apply to police. I don't want them subjected to rifle fire or bombs for which kevlar vests are not protective (which brings up gun control) and I don't want the police using battlefield devices on civilians. Supposing the robot had been carrying something else: maybe a canister of tear gas and a percussive (not lethal) explosive. Surely that would have been distracting enough to provide an opportunity for the police to safely pounce
I do not want battlefield conditions to apply to police either. In fact I think they would have a lot easier time if they were called Peace Officers which is what we are really looking for, peace. If authorities are considering using a robot again, I think that there should be more ideas of what can be attached to the robot in order to neutralize a threat, discussed BEFORE it's use becomes necessary.
I like the idea of robocops. I'm creating this movie in my head where all the criminals, all the cops, the judges, the prisoners, everything are robots. The real people stay at home and watch TV showing all the robocrime. There are even robojurors. Of course there are roboprostitutes too (this ismy movie, so that's how this bitch works). Here's where this shit gets freaky and might just blow your mind though. There are robocats except they don't have kitty cat claws, they have pianos, yeah fucking baby grand claws, and they control the world by playing Mary had a Little Lamb. Damn that's the shit? Right, you feeling me?
New truck hurray! Car lasted a long time, about two years, but the bearings were going on the right front tire, so I just drove it until I thought the tire might fly off soon, and took the day off the get the truck today. Boss has been after me for awhile to get a truck. They're definitely a lot more useful, but cars are more fun to drive.
Definitely nicer than my car though, now rather than shitty my vehicle is average! Hazah!
Reply to Wosret Cool truck. Ever since I went to Canada I've wanted one of those things. As it turns out, I have a 1994 Renault Laguna. An indestructible classic, but battered and highly unglamorous.
My car was rough, got it shortly after moving out here for fairly cheap, but put about 5g into it in that time, and didn't want to spend anymore on it, though I'm keeping it as a second vehicle for my dad, I'll just replace the bearings later. The car was a 2002 grand am gt. I put 60k kilometers on it, so it definitely paid for itself.
The Truck is a 2006 ford f250 triton. It's a huge monster. I'll have to get used to it.
Woo Hoo!!!! Nice ride!
So the next time I need 10 bales of hay, I can call on you for help with a pick up and delivery? No sniveling allowed tossing bales and cold brews to follow~
Game?
Reply to Wosret That is a very big truck. A man likes a big truck. You can carry a load of shingles, bales of hay, and sundry other items.
Big trucks fuck, little cars suck. Un grand baise de camion. Les petites voitures sucent.
Google translation isn't sure whether "big trucks fuck" means that a big truck is a whore, or a big truck kisses. Was Google Translate being perceptively subtle or just wrong? Don't know.
It is, in fact, as big as it can be while avoiding requiring commercial license, visible license number written on the truck, and requirement to stop at weigh scales when hauling. What surprised me though, today, was that my bosses f350 isn't as big... I guess it's because mine is the long box or something, but I'm like a foot higher.
They were all fairly impressed, nicer than their trucks, at least arguably. I like all the cool shit it does, like the remote start, with temperature gauge, so I can start the truck from inside, and know when it's warm enough! I'ma love that this winter.
You lost me pretty hard after "that's a big truck", but thanks!
Should mention, I was completely out shined though, as my boss also won a 2016 corvette yesterday on the full house lottery. A like 70k car, so pretty exactly ten times better. Though he can't get cash value, and has to take the car, which he gets in like ten days or something. Also, when the car goes into your name, and has an owner, it's considered used, even if you've never seen it, and it has zero kilometers on it.
Still, that lucky sob. I never play lotteries or anything, probably why I never win. He does spend like a couple hundred a week on lottery stuff though, at least. Probably paid for the car by now, so sayeth my resentment.
Reply to Wosret I guess a new corvette would be nice, even if you can't get instant cash value out of it. There are, I hear, worse things than being forced to drive a "slightly used" corvette.
Don't play the lottery. It's like pissing money down a drain.
He definitely wants money. He doesn't plan to drive it, and when it gets it, he plans to get it flatbed hauled to his place to keep it at zero clicks. He will probably get 60k for it.
I have no plans to play the lottery, my lucks not so great.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 14, 2016 at 12:54#139440 likes
Big trucks fuck, little cars suck. Un grand baise de camion. Les petites voitures sucent.
Google translation isn't sure whether "big trucks fuck" means that a big truck is a whore, or a big truck kisses. Was Google Translate being perceptively subtle or just wrong? Don't know.
LoloLOllloLoloLoooolOlolOll lol :-!
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 14, 2016 at 12:59#139450 likes
That sounds like a nice relaxing day off from the physical demands of roofing, lol.
If you are roofing in 110* + for the 14th day this summer?
I am buying! ;) The guys around here start before sunrise and are done by noon. Then it's a cool beer, some beans, rice and an avocado before siesta. Waking for a brief interaction with the family, dinner and in bed soon after the sun.
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 14, 2016 at 13:04#139460 likes
You were still the one who came out ahead, Corvettes can't haul hay! 8-)
Stranded at a gas station off the highway, was hoping it would last a week at least, seems that the alternator died. Truck hasn't been running for awhile, it might just be sticking, and I can tap it with a hammer or something and put it off for a week. Need to get boosted though.
Yeah, it is hot, but you can't do long construction in the city before like 7 or 8 am , 10 on Sundays. We can do a good 60 bundle house, starting at 9 by about 2 or 3. I would be surprised if there were a faster or efficient crew. People will work their asses right off, and for no extra benefit if you're setting the pace.
You're right, it's damn hot though. I lose like six lbs everyday of water, I'm constantly downing sickening amounts of water. Yesterday, the home owner brought us coffee and doughnuts... I was like we aren't business people in an air conditioned building, cold drinks would be nicer...
We can do a good 60 bundle house, starting at 9 by about 2 or 3. I would be surprised if there were a faster or efficient crew.
If I start at 9, I can do a 90 bundle house and sexually satisfy the entire neighborhood by 11. The only part you beat me on is that you only lose 6 pounds in body liquid a day. I lose a good 20, but I've got the ladies to deal with, so it's understandable.
New alternator, got it in, all fixed. What a job though. I broke the insertion for the tensioner, because it's the only thing in the world you turn clockwise to loosen... snapped it right in two... and then I had to get the serpinetine belt back on without being able to release the tension. I was starting to get really frustrated, and thinking that I may not be able to do it... and have to call AMA... but then I figured out an awesome way. I put it on all but the bottom sprocket dealy, then put a strap through the belt and from underneath managed to get it half way around the sprocket, then just cut the strap on both sides, boosted it and started it up, it sucked the belt into place, and spit the strap piece out! Damn I'm good.
Self esteem is an important property of personality. After all, one can go for several months without a single pat on the back (not to mention all the stabbings).
because it's the only thing in the world you turn clockwise to loosen...
When I were a lad my pa had a Lagonda; it had reverse threads on the wheel nuts on one side so they wouldn't come loose. Ask a physicist which side. It also had a built in hydraulic jack system. The good old days...
I freely admit that I'm far from a mechanic, I'm entirely uncertain of the prevalence of these bizarro threadings -- but I have the tools, and the will, and the internet to look that shit up. Though, that last strap thing was entirely improvised.
When I were a lad my pa had a Lagonda; it had reverse threads on the wheel nuts on one side so they wouldn't come loose. Ask a physicist which side.
A lot of old Willis/Jeeps had left handed threads on the front axles as well to stop them from shaking loose when under traction. They should be on the right hand side.
On one old Commando I had the front axle got bust and there were no replacements available. I had a brilliant idea to fix it though. I found another axle that was bust on the other side and swapped out the sections. Made the car 8 inches wider at the front but increased stability incredibly. So I did the back axle as well.
I really don't know what France is doing or plans to do in light these horrific attacks. Hollande gives much the same platitudinous speech everytime this happens.
Hollande was at 90% disapproval prior to the attack, which was record breaking at the time, who knows where it is now, I think he needs to step aside. While not much is being written about it, apparently France has problems in its Intelligence system. If a huge truck like this was filled with armaments, they must have been sourced from somewhere, and France's Intelligence system ought to be on top of it.
ISIS now claims the attacker, but there are doubts.
Actually came here to shout:
Comrade Trotsky’s once wrote:
“It is not the party that makes the program[platform]; it is the program[platform] that makes the party.”
I don't think that people need to be forced to treat others decently and fairly, and small businesses with just a couple of employees will be working directly with them, and will not require government intervention, regulation...
That's where you're wrong, but I'll be glad if we don't put it to the test and find out the hard way.
If I work for myself, what profits am I entitled to? Why should I only be entitled to certain profits if I work for someone else?
I don't know why you're asking me these questions. You should be entitled to a reasonable amount in both cases, but what constitutes a reasonable amount is of course arguable. I don't believe that either of us accept, for obvious reasons, that an employee employed by an employer should be entitled to anything other than only a certain amount, so I don't understand why you seem to be addressing the absurd notion that an employee in those circumstances should be entitled to [i]any[/I] amount whatsoever.
Reply to Sapientia I think he's questioning that if I'm not entitled to a minimum wage and other benefits when I work for myself then why should I be entitled to a minimum wage and other benefits when I work for someone else?
(I'm tired, please forgive the grammar; I know it's a mess)
The question isn't whether or how much the Trumpence campaign plagiarized Michele Obama's 2008 speech; it's Why would they bother?
It's slovenly practice, and unnecessary. Mrs. Trump presumably has an interesting enough story and a standard enough outlook on the future that she doesn't need to borrow her thoughts from Michele Obama.
Thieves with at least a touch of craft personalize the lifted text: they juggle the word order, substitute something here and there; change the punctuation, mess around with it until it doesn't look like cut and paste composition. Mrs. Obama didn't say anything earthshaking, of course, but it's always surprising that 5 different and independent writers can say exactly the same thing using different words and/or different word order. That's why plagiarism sticks out like a sore thumb.
You would think even a cut rate liar would know that.
What I think is least impressive is that, again, Trump is caught in a blatant lie, and again, stares straight at the camera and denies it. No wonder he and Putin get along so well.
Reply to Thorongil I know one of the long term effects. We won't be in the EU.
;)
ArguingWAristotleTiffJuly 20, 2016 at 13:36#140710 likes
8-) I am succumbing to the idea that it is way to freakin hot here. I looked at property up north that would give us light seasons and is a year away from being able to. Downsize with the animals in the woods with the kids there on the weekends while in college and until they want to move out. It is only an hour away from here but we are already an hour away from most of our family here in town.
Dunno...just dreaming about Winterbury our dream B&B that is built out of A frames that are each individually owned but we will manage the rental time when the owner does not wish to have their cabin reserved. It will cost about $100k per cabin and the owner can choose to have it reserved all year for themselves or a day, it's all up to them. There is the ability for the owner to make money, it's all in how many days we can rent out when they are not there.
We will build the Main house of Winterbury where we will provide a game room, the Kitchen and dining room. Staying with us will include a homemade hot breakfast of recipes that will blow your mind, a celebration in your mouth, a foodgasmic experience for sure! 8-)
Our guests usually travel away from the ranch by Jeep or horse, either of which can accommodate a 'Picnic Lunch' (for an extra charge)) and then return for dinner offered in our dining room or via in cabin dining. The Kitchen at Winterbury never closes but does take a snooze. During the hours of Midnight and 4am, guests are encouraged to feed their need. The Kitchen is stocked with the makings for just about any craving, feel free to make anything you wish, our kitchen is your kitchen.
I could go on and on and on but I know I would bore most. But a dream is a goal that hasn't been written down, so I write and write, 25 yrs I have been writing.
I don't know why you're asking me these questions.
If for no reason other than to hear the sweet melody of your voice when you respond.
You should be entitled to a reasonable amount in both cases, but what constitutes a reasonable amount is of course arguable.
So we'll have a committee debate and decide what each person should make, as opposed to having the market determine it. Sounds like some sort of USSR totalitarian communist Marxist nonsense.
I don't believe that either of us accept, for obvious reasons, that an employee employed by an employer should be entitled to anything other than only a certain amount, so I don't understand why you seem to be addressing the absurd notion that an employee in those circumstances should be entitled to any amount whatsoever.
I think he's questioning that if I'm not entitled to a minimum wage and other benefits when I work for myself then why should I be entitled to a minimum wage and other benefits when I work for someone else?
That's precisely what I'm saying.
I consider this post of yours an excellent secondary source for gaining a full understanding of Hanoverian thought.
Comments (61561)
If Robert Lockhart joins and finds this...
... it will become the Manifesto Box. :-O
Meow!
GREG
Banno in the 'screambox?
MEOWWWWWW!!!!
Greg
Just how happy?
Wish the old bugger would show up.
Emphasis? :s
Meow!
GREG
But here, everyone is invisible. I like that. It removes another distraction. However you can see who's online by going here: http://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/members/online
This site is visually far prettier than the old PF and has some nice features.
I did too. I thought... that's not a very flattering name.
But how did you figure out that it was a she?
I call it a "she" as a formality, because Modbot is a clone of Eliza, which is a female name.
;) Btw it's been a WHILE since something rocked my world on a Sunday night! ;)
So I was all like, "oh yeah, well my dog can sense earth quakes and fly.".
Lots of people around here said that there was an eerie quite, not even the dogs barked for a while before it happened. Don't know whether they can sense things like that or if it is just us attaching "possible" memories to the events.
But which caused what? As I said it might have been coincidence and then attached to the memory of the shaking.
And apart from that, why do you have horse carriages? :s
La plume de ma tante
Est sur le bureau de mon oncle,
Le papier de mon oncle
Est sur le bureau de ma tante.
Have you heard this horrible song, long ago? Or the equally awful itsy bits tout petit petit bikini?
We need one here. cus they got one over the other side of the street.
have to say a thing, it wrecks the persona I have already imagined. ..so yea shut up!
Re-imagining.
Thinking about a Turducken re-imagined as a Terrine, a French styled meatloaf. It is easy enough to purchase ground chicken and turkey, and duck breast. The duck breast has a layer of fat over it, which, since its fat is very tasty, I would trim off and put over the top of the Terrine. All three meats are done about same temp...some garlic, onion, mushroom...yea it's that time of year!
Putting the chopped or ground duck in center, which hopefully will add moisture and flavor to the Turkey and the Chicken. Slices that look kinda of like a meaty Rothko Serving over a salad topped with a light creamy vinaigrette. Champagne, a dry sherry or a Prosecco.
I have not decided on kind of mushroom or whether I should just chop up the duck fine for more mouth feel or ground it up like the chicken and turkey. Maybe instead of the duck fat, bacon or just butter on top of the Terrine, otherwise the dish might be too greasy.
Thoughts?
If you carefully removed the skin of a smart chicken, you could use it as a wrap for the boned raw meat, and it would (if it were smart) get crispy. You could use turkey drum sticks and cut the meat off those. Cut nice large hunks of raw meat off the chicken carcass and then combine them with duck and combine with the chopped mushrooms, garlic, onion, and a little ground black pepper and salt. Wrap in the chicken skin. Use the chicken carcass and turkey bones for soup.
This is strictly fantasy. I have never cooked anything so complicated. Proceed at your own risk.
I don't like rare duck, so I would want to make sure it was quite done. No rare fowl period. Can this be managed in your recipe? One could add bacon and/or a little chopped up sausage. Ham? Wild rice?
Like sweet potatoes? Bake several yams or sweet potatoes (same thing). Remove skins. Beat to a somewhat smooth consistency, add some butter and salt slightly. Back at the ranch, cook 3 or 4 sliced tart apples with 2 cups of cranberries. Sweeten to taste. Put the mashed sweet potatoes in a baking dish. Spread the cranberry-apple mixture on top. Reheat.
I will look for 'Smart' Chicken. Temperature should not be a problem, chicken, turkey and duck are good from 165 to 175 degrees F. And since this will be cooked in a deep oval dish with a lid, getting the right internal temperature should not present a problem. Un- Molding the Terrine will be more of a trick, I want it to come out looking like the dish it was cooked in so it can be sliced like a loaf.
I have this big ass Kitchen-Aid with a grinding blade for meat so it is more a question of what cuts will work best, I think I will stay traditional, if there is such a thing as traditional Turducken. Breast meat tends to dry out, and I imagine it will take a while to cook because it will be fairly dense. I like cooking so it should be a challenge to get to just right not to dry, not too greasy. I have to review some of the traditional recipes to determine how people season them and may borrow some ideas.
It will be served cold...the gelatin in the meats should congeal enough to keep the slices together, make them aesthetically pleasing. :)
Most of my favorite shows were on USA and they took it off.
Life sucks in paradise sometimes.
Yeah I know, I have every episode of ALF and "That 70' Show", plus a few other short runners. But I don't bother looking for things unless I know about them. Maybe I'll checkout a couple of shows.
Oh my give me some Shep! Anytime, anywhere, EVER! He KNOCKS it outta the park!
~swooning~ (L)
Is that the end of the discussion, period?
By the way, I do believe I got the last word at PF on Hanover's "Last Word" thread!
Time to pay up Hanover! X-)
After reading this he will probably decide to either ignore the whole thing or say that you can't win because the other site is still running and therefore the last post has not been reached.
Peace for Paris
Jean Jullen
The comment sections below the articles are, however, appallingly juvenile and/or appallingly troglodyte, and/or vicious and paleoconservative. Good newspaper, bad readers.
Sent you a PM about newspapers and media.
Let's start with what we shouldn't do:
No nation building, we suck at that.
No boots on the ground, because we have our own ISIS cells to stamp out here in America.
What is our moral responsibility in regards to taking refugees into the USA?
This article points towards some answers: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/
>:o
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/paris-attacks-anonymous-launches-its-biggest-operation-ever-against-isis-promises-to-hunt-down-a6735811.html
I somehow get the feeling that theses hackers are not the '42 virgins' they had in mind...
Meow!
GREG
[video]https://youtube.com/watch?v=NgtVc4gTcgY[/video]
Any guesses without Googling it?
Mens' makeup? 8-)
Perhaps Dr. Glenda Greenthumb?
Perhaps AfroWOman?
... but this is the most accurate clue.
Mary Mary...
Meow!
GREG
The great irony is that I hate smoke.
Whether tobacco or weed or incense or frankincense...
... it all stinks!
Meow!
GREG
Also, too many cat videos on internet... cat porn.
I want to take a moment to tell each and every one of you how very Thankful I am to have you in my life. I begin everyday with you and wouldn't have it any other way. Whether we agree on issues does not matter, what matters is having those around us who will tell us so. 8-)
Thank you for your love, your time and most of all your opinion~
Tiffers (L)
I had to change various DNS settings because the software update required me to use a CNAME instead of an A record, which meant that I had to move the DNS to CloudFlare because they allow CNAME records to be used with a host name--which is all Plush gave me--instead of an IP address, and then I couldn't get the MX records working and then the www to non-www redirect didn't work any more and -- well, I finally fixed it. Might have something to do with it. Maybe you've been trying to access http://www.thephilosophyforum.com instead of http://thephilosophyforum.com. It redirects to the correct URL now.
Could have been a problem when accessing it from Aus.
One would like to give them something to talk about.
I was looking at your profile and noticed you have yourself listed as an old fashioned cowboy which got the song 'Old Fashioned Love Song' stuck playing in my head, prompting me to Thank you personally for that ear worm. On a side note, did you at one time wear a man bun? I vaguely remember seeing a picture of you with one but maybe that was just a figment of my imagination. :D
That's the explanation for everything.
Granted, they aren't all that bad (but a few are worse).
... pretended to be a photographer for a 3 day medical conference (fake it successfully every years), but had to go through over 7000 photos making non-model (with big egos) look better than they really do using no flash in poorly light rooms of people mostly talking. (took another 7 days)
... now getting ready to fly to the USA in 7 days. Haven't been there at this time of the year for nearly 20 years. Not too sure how much time I'll have for ranting here in the next 5 weeks.
Atleast it's a direct flight, as usually I fly to Washington DC via Paris. :-O
Fly in with lots of sweets and gingerbread and fly back with a lot of t shirts and baseball stuff. A fair trade. :D
Meow!
GREG
Does the initiation rite include homosexual acts? I just want to be sure what I'm signing up for.
I've managed to overcome the issue of gifts for my sister and her two nice, yet overly naive, unknowingly snobbish and obscenely privileged children. I decided to contribute to the American national pastime of type-2 diabetes and bring them sweets. Lots of chocolates, ginger bread and other Austrian traditional means to create tooth decay... including a chocolate Krampus for each of them.
I'll allow Christoph Waltz to explain Krampus:
Meow!
GREG
Have you witnessed the running of the Krampus?
I was in Tirol on the countryside (Wörgl) 5 years ago at an outdoor winter festival when virtual parade of Krampusen were about.
Someone posted it online:
It was indeed entertaining, a bit traumatic and potentially dangerous.
These guys seriously drink their body weight in homeburned Schnaps.
Meow!
GREG
Update: omg that is hilarious and I adore Jimmy Fallon but now I am kind of embarrassed at the idea that I saw a phallic shape in the chocolate uncovered. If I had to choose, I would take the Dark Chocolate version please! ;)
I'm not too sure I agree.
RANT ALARM!!!
Americans tend to have quick and selective amnesia about such rants... calling them 'colorful' or even worse 'a strong leader' (confusing the idiot who screams loudly first and thinks never with being a strong leader... examples include Reagan, Bush, Baby W Bush, Baby Baby Jeb (I caused 9/11) Bush, McCain, Rubio and so on) ...
... then finding some sort of non-issue issue to make as the cornerstone of the election... like "W" managed to do with Gay Marriage in the face of a real terrorist threat. (Yes; trivial issues for a trivial folk! Who then bitches about the shit decisions they make as if it is someone else's fault... thus start to pray before the prey upon scapegoats and go hunting for witches... then again, what can you expect from a bunch of puritans who are simply fearful and boring!)
I fear if he wins the nomination, the American public is really stupid enough to elect him. They watch FOX News and think this is news. Let's not confuse being hopeful with being gullible.
Let's face it... Europe is far too busy with finding places for the current crop of refugees to bother with intellectual refugees coming from the USA as well... :-O
... then again; tit for tat...
... where did America get all the intellectuals from after WWII in the first place? ;)
Meow!
GREG
At what point do you not want to continue living? What are the deal breakers for you? Loss of memory? Loss of control of your faculties? The inability to stand up? Where do you draw that line?
Thoughts please (L)
You might like to read/watch Iris.
It's a tough situation.
One thing to determine, is there anything practical that can be done? Doctors are not always helpful here. They might propose invasive tests to determine the cause of a heart problem in a man who is 102 years old, and who couldn't possibly survive the then-recommended surgery. But, it depends on the doctor.
If there is nothing that can practically be done curatively, what can be done to improve the man's QOL for his remaining time?
If there is something that can be done to improve the QOL (there usually is, unless there are zero resources) are the necessary resources available?
If what can be done has been done, then one may reasonably pray for the grace to accept whatever will happen next. Actually, it's not a bad idea to pray for that, even if one is merely going to the dentist to get one's teeth cleaned. The possibly of disaster is always just one step behind us.
We are, none of us, put together in such a way that we can deal with a human loved one's on-coming death in a perfectly rational manner. We took very good care of our retriever, but when she was elderly and had a stroke, it was off to the vet for euthanasia -- no heroic measures, please. No extended suffering. No long term care at home. Just a painful "So long old friend."
So many of us have been, and/or will be, in your situation with a parent, spouse, child, friend, or even our selves, and it doesn't seem to get easier with practice. It helps me to think there is only so much that can usually be done, and even what can be done isn't always a good idea. Sometimes we just have to let go.
I'm trying to decide how to structure my health care directive. Should I end up in a complicated, messy inconclusive, fairly bad situation, I'd like to suggest that they just give me a shot like the vet gave our dog. In fact, they can call in the vet to do it. I've lived long enough that a sudden departure can't be considered terrible at this point. Who should I ask to make the decision if I am non compos mentis? I have a sister who is ready to pull the plug on my case right now, but she'll probably die before me, so she's no help, really.
My Dad will be 73 this coming March. He has been Bipolar and medicated since 71, adult onset Diabetes but still light enough to be controlled orally, Parkinson's disease diagnosed 3 years ago, Roman Catholic born, raised, educated and attended church daily until the age of 51. At the age of 51 he began dating a woman (now his 3rd wife) who was Mormon and has since been a devote Mormon, much to the horror of the remaining Roman Catholic's in the family. I have no idea how much time he has remaining but my brother (4yrs my senior) who lives in Chicago, sees my Dad about once a month, who now has Medical Power of Attorney of my Dad (transferred out of his wife's name 3 weeks ago) says that my Dad is no where near qualifying for Hospice (which my Mom was a nurse for the last 20yrs of her career) but I am not so sure.
My Dad's physical health has been ravaged by Parkinson's for the last three years to the point he is in bed 80% of the time, total loss of control over bodily functions and in the last three months, he has been searching for words but nothing dramatic and his mind has been sharp until about three weeks ago. He had fallen 3 days in a row where he needed help getting up, so she called the paramedics and on the 4th fall his wife demanded that he get checked out at the hospital. They hospitalized him for Pneumonia, sent him to a rehab for his balance and he has been declining ever since. The rehab sent him home since he was no longer improving, providing him a hospital bed at home and he lasted 32 hrs before he was back at the rehab place. The day before he was discharged he was having to be lifted off the bed and into a wheel chair with an electrical lift so it made no sense as to why they would discharge him but it turned out it was Medicare limits having been exhausted for 2015 so unless his blood sugar spiked or he became dehydrated and HAD to be admitted to the hospital, he was home until Jan. 1, 2016 when MC benefits renew. He is requiring 24 hr care and in home nursing will run $20 an hour and with Parkinson's it could easily run $500 a day, as he requires a two person lift. 32 hours later we had him back at the same place that had discharged him and that is where he is now.
My Dad was able to debate me all his life and it is something we enjoy, actually our whole family is that way but for me and Dad, it is special. I am the only one of his three children that have always accepted his change in religion and that has allowed him to speak openly to me, something I respect and treasure. My half sister who lives less than 5 miles from our Dad, has not allowed him back into her life since he changed religion so refuses to be any part of our Dad's life. I know it breaks his heart but I have fought, loved and begged her to see different but as my Dad's last coherent words about my sister seeing him was "Your sister won't be around until the words 'Thy Kingdom come' are engraved in silver."
Last Friday my Uncle was present for my Dad's evaluation and was stunned. The Doctor asked my Dad what month it was: November. Do you know where you are? Rehab place. Are you married? Yes. Do you know your wife's name? Yes, Nancy. Can you add 5 + 15 = ? My Uncle said he saw my Dad searching for the answer but he said no. Then she asked him if he knew what 2 + 3=? And he answered 5. She asked again about 5 + 15=? He said he didn't know.
My world has fallen apart, I have no idea where he is. Is he over medicated (possibly playing with his own meds at home, then on full strength now?) or has he had a stroke or a series of TIA's? Why am I the only one questioning this?
I called my Dad on Sunday and when he got on the phone with me he, HE, was back. I was absolutely confused. His speech was sharp, his mind clear, so I asked him "Dad? Can you tell me what 5 + 15 =?" I could hear the questioning in his voice and he said "20, why are you asking me this?" I said because on Friday you could not answer that question. He asked what question? I said the math question that was asked by the Doctor. He was in the middle of telling me I was crazy when my Uncle walked into the rehab facility in Chicago and I told him to ask his brother. So he did. I could hear my Dad ask my Uncle and my Uncle in his own words explained that what I was saying was true, that he couldn't do it. My Dad asked "What Doctor?" I told my Dad to enjoy the time with his brother and I would call him back.
I relayed this all to my brother and we are having his meds evaluated to make sure this is not just over medication because there is a 'fog' that seems to come and go in my Dad's responses. Or maybe he had a stroke. Something I suggested to my Dad on Friday, that I wish he would ask his Doctor for a CAT scan of his head to make sure he didn't have a stroke, which he responded with a STRONG NO. He is refusing to have another CAT scan because they have all come out normal. There is nothing wrong with his head.
My Mom says she thinks Hospice needs to be called in, that way his 24 hr care at home will be NC for him, will not run down his estate, will provide counseling for the family and be kept comfortable. All we need is for his Doc to say he has less than 6 months to live. When my mind goes there, I am at peace. To know that he is at home, surrounded by his home, my Uncle, his wife if she sticks around and Hospice Angels. People who really give a damn. But my brother and my Dad's wife think that he has much longer than 6 months to live....which leaves me with the quandary as to what to pray for.
My Dad has said for many years, though he can't recall it now, that if the Good Lord decided to not have his eyes open tomorrow, that he will have lead a good life and would be okay with it. That idea bothered me greatly, to the point I asked him to stop saying that and he did.
It is becoming more clear to me that people don't always cease living in one day but when am I being selfish to pray for him to improve and not to pray for the God he prays to, to take him, that it is okay with me.
Mom says my Dad is a proud man and he has lost his dignity and it seems men have a harder time losing their dignity than a woman. She says that I need to stop asking for this test and that test, that in all her time in Hospice, it was the out of state loved ones that felt not enough was being done. That those around the loved one everyday, was more accepting. ~breaking down again~
She says it is time for me to be his daughter, not yet another person trying to figure out what is wrong with him (my testing his math ect). To allow him to talk about what he wants and when he doesn't feel like talking, talk to him. Not the crying, I love you, over and over like he is drowning. Talk to him about his Grandkids, talk to him about the weather, the places you have been, about his God, about whatever he would want to talk about if he could. Enjoy the days when he is alert, be his ray of sunshine, be the one he prays with, be the one who says it's okay for him to go when he wants to meet God, be the one that says 'Dad................I'll be a;gfiht......"
I just can't. It's not my nature and it just makes me sad to the depths of my soul and like he taught me, when you get kicked down, you rise up stronger than ever before. Well? Am I not supposed to be the one telling him that now? I don't want him to think I don't love and am giving up on him.
Oh yeah and it's Christmas and ...everything that goes with celebrations that I don't feel like celebrating, fun that just seems so trivial, people in other cars laughing, how? I feel very, very alone.
Best wishes.
Regarding the CAT scan and a stroke... If he had a stroke, which is always a possibility, there probably isn't much that can be done about it. If it was a stroke caused by a clot, blood thinners could be prescribed; if it was caused by bleeding, clotting drugs could be prescribed. Both kinds of drugs require close monitoring and can backfire severely. Or, a CAT scan might find some oddity or another, and then what do you do about that?
None of the care alternatives are particularly pleasant. If he needs nursing home care, he will probably receive it using his own funds first, then -- when those are depleted -- Medicaid. Medicaid allows for an estate to be divided (not way ahead of time, though) so that the spouse is not impoverished. It is now too late to distribute assets -- that would have had to be done several years ago. OR, if assets were distributed now, there would be several years during which the state might seem repayment. If assets were distributed now (to avoid losing them) and your father needed medicaid services before 3 to 5 years from now, then the state of Illinois or the applicable county would most likely sue to recover the too-late distributed assets after your father's death.
Hospice requires a terminal condition. Your father probably isn't close to death with good supportive care. (That doesn't mean "in good shape" of course.)
A line you might take: Your sister's visiting her father, all the while ignoring Mormonism, would be one of the corporal works of mercy.
Some of the drugs for Parkinson's Disease can be very problematic -- especially for people with major mental illnesses -- like bi-polar. On the other hand, if one does have PD, the drugs can make a big difference, at least for a period of time. They generally fizzle out over time. Are you, is your father, aware of the new "pacemaker" type implant for Parkinson's? It can work, and it doesn't involve deep-brain surgery (as far as I know). It uses electrical stimulation to suppress tremors and release paralysis. Not everyone is a good candidate -- it's not so much a matter of age, as other factors. So I gather.
Yes, it hard just "being" the son, daughter, spouse, friend of somebody who is suffering. One wants to step in and do something that makes everything all better. Like, have they thought of..., or have they tried..., or they should... and so on.
Generally, what can be done for us and our various ailments is circumscribed by external realities. Like, if the wheel chair can't fit through the front door, then... Or if insurance doesn't cover that procedure, then... or if the doctor that I see doesn't think thus and so, then... It may not be fair, or understandable, or soluble, but generally all problems can not be swept away. Eventually we run up against brick walls.
It was always a pleasure to discuss thing with you.
I see a lot of headlines with ambiguous meanings. Is this new, did I never notice it before, or did I used to understand the abbreviated grammar of headlines, but am now losing the ability?
I think it depends on where you read the headlines. Some of the stuff on Yahoo is incredibly stupid.
I like to read the articles and then criticize the lack of education of Yahoo writers. Bummer ain't it when life's few little pleasures are become so absurd.
:P
I have a feeling that the "ambiguous meanings" you are seeing in the headlines of the NYT have NOTHING to do with your mental stability or early indicators of Alzheimer's but rather you are seeing a gross display of the lazy writers/Editors at the less than respectable NYT. :D
How exciting! Is that a first for you, or you've seen snow at Christmas before?
Frankly, I've had enough of the winter wonderland routine. There has to be an upside to global warming. Less snow might be IT.
Bah humbug. I live in the Pennines, we had two white Christmasses in a row in 2010/11 if memory serves. I like it when it happens, walking out in the pureness, the way entire landscapes transform - but then, I don't have a porch. Come to think of it, I did break my elbow a few years ago on ice but that hasn't put me off!
https://gist.github.com/bishboria/8326b17bbd652f34566a
Anyone want to tell 2015 to KMA? And a HUGE welcoming hello to 2016?
:D
I'll be having a toast to Mars Man.
A single malt with ice.
Sad news. Gone, but not forgotten.
I hope you had a happy birthday, @Baden.
It's awesome all those mathematics books are available. In my opinion, tho, with the very rare exception of natural geniuses, math more complex than college calculus is all but impossible to learn on one's own, outside of an academic (or mentor-mentee) setting. Especially if you're trying to cram your autodidactic studies into the precious free hours available outside of work and errands and family and etc etc.
Yeah, by and large, some of those books are in-depth on very specific topics.
In general, I find that making such material available to anyone, is a great gesture, though.
I think you're right. :(
Some folks elsewhere downloaded some number of them; maybe they'll become available.
To stiffle the disapointment, on a number of topics:
MIT OpenCourseWare | Free Online Course Materials
Being motivated enough to sit down with a mathematics book without having the pressure of approaching exams, is another story all together.
I assumed that when Tiff wished you a happy birthday two days ago, it was your birthday.
The word JOY is over rated. NicK's first love was named Joy and she was everything to him BUT!
I only want to understand calculus so I can understand physics. If I could gain a good understanding of the latter without the former... But it seems pretty essential.
It's 2:30am here. I'm not tired enough to go to sleep, but I have to get ready for work in less than six hours. Drat.
MY ANSWER: Oh... a little less. But really, it doesn't make any difference how old kale is. It's a crude disgusting dark, green leafy weed to start with, and it goes down hill from there. Best thing to do with kale (fresh, frozen, 10 weeks old and slimy) is to throw it on the compost heap along with the dead squirrels, dandelions roots, rotten tomatoes, etc.
Our motto: Eat Less Kale
It stays fresh a lot longer than most leafy vegetables.
My Motto: Kale never gets stale.
Oil oil: so good they named it twice.
BC
"de gustibus non est disputandum"
Chop up some kale, put it on a pan, add some oil and some salt and place in the oven for a minute. Now you have salty, tasty kale chips. Delicious.
Enjoy your day and Thank you for sharing part of your life with us~
(Y)
Also, happy birthday, @TheWillowOfDarkness. (If it is indeed your birthday).
I'm not back, though. There's this person who keeps mulling over the nature of knowledge and it thinks it's me. It feels like it's wandering off into uncharted territory and it has a lot of respect for this particular set of humanoids.
What's your favourite brassica? I can't decide between broccoli and brussels sprouts.
Chocolate.
I've just been to see Star Wars. It's so good! I wanna see it again, and I wanna see the sequels.
I saw it just a few weeks ago, but it seemed to me as if I saw first it back in 1977.
I suppose that not everyone can remember 1977, as either they weren't born yet or let's face it... the 70's were difficult to remember, due to it being the 70's or the various chemicals of the time.
WHO IS REY?
Answer is easy:
She's Luke's transgender clone.
Meow!
GREG
Father of Koch Brothers Helped Build Nazi Oil Refinery, Book Says
The father of the billionaires Charles G. and David H. Koch helped construct a major oil refinery in Nazi Germany that was personally approved by Adolf Hitler, according to a new history of the Kochs and other wealthy families.[/i][/b]
The book, “Dark Money,” by Jane Mayer, traces the rise of the modern conservative movement through the activism and money of a handful of rich donors: among them Richard Mellon Scaife, an heir to the Mellon banking fortune, and Harry and Lynde Bradley, brothers who became wealthy in part from military contracts but poured millions into anti-government philanthropy.
It's available RIGHT NOW. It's waiting for you.
Read it and weep. Probably.
Truth and realities
Right or left doesn't matter. Not much has changed for the better in the 30 years since I have been out of High school.
Monique Bourgeois got the job.
She entered the convent in 1943 and when Matisse moved to Venice (1946?), she convinced him to do the design work. He had been baptized as a Catholic, but was non-practicing... Catholics divide all humanity into all those baptized and those not baptized. They are not too concerned about the atheist moniker, because as long as you have been baptized, all it takes is one good/sincere act of contrition, and ya'll are home free.
He started on the 4 yr. project in 1947 at age 77.
I'm going to cry now.
I've considered forming the That/What Organization that (what) will be committed to eliminating the word "that" and having it replaced with "what" in all instances. Instead of saying "you are the one that I want," it'd be "you are the one what I want." It's fun, childlike, adds a bit a variety, and, most importantly, no stupider than having an organization that chooses a word of the year.
If you understand logic, you will rule the world. You don't understand logic, do you rule the world? Maybe, nobody ever said the only way for you to rule the world was by understanding logic. That was just one way.
Iff you understand logic, you will rule the world. You don't understand logic, do you rule the world? No, I just said that the only way for you to rule the world was by understanding logic.
Get it now?
Anyone want to join me in a quest in Middle Earth? :)
Can't stand summer, though. Too damn hot, stagnant and boring.
In Taiwan, there is a church. It is 55 feet tall, 36 feet wide, made of 320 pieces of glass, and looks like a giant high-heeled shoe. Like Cinderella’s glass slipper. . Designed for female worshipers who fit.
Meow!
GREG
The glass stiletto church will have over 100 female features including:
Chairs for lovers, biscuits and cakes, all ideal photographs & maple leaves.
Maple Leaves?
Very old joke.
I am going to have some beer & wings this afternoon, probably PBRs.
I'm trying to track down if this essay is by *the* Frederic Jameson. It fits chronologically. And seems to fit his writing. Just wondering if other people have insight on this. I tripped across it when looking up stuff on Zardoz, an incredibly silly movie that's a muse to all lovers of bad film.
Do you believe Iran can be trusted? Can we rebuild a new connection with Iran?
Can Iran be trusted? The question is more complicated than it first appears.
Every country pursues policies what it's executive officials believe are in the best interests of their country. The United States does this, and so does Iran, and every other country. There is no reason to suppose that Iran will always (or ever) perceive its best interests to be the same as ours. We can trust other countries to pursue their best interests, rather than ours. This applies to everyone. Lithuania and Russia, for instance, will pursue their separate national interests, regardless of what their opposites in Moscow and Vilnius would prefer.
Can Iran be trusted to never pursue an atomic bomb? No. That's why countries sign treaties, get agreements on inspections, gets the UN atomic energy group involved, and so on. In addition we engage in espionage and they engage in counterespionage. They might consider new secret activities, and we will consider more intrusive surveillance. We also hold out carrots, (probably attached to big sticks).
Did the United States want France to develop an independent nuclear force? I'm not sure -- but probably not. Are the French bad actors because they went ahead and did it anyway? No. We clearly preferred to have a monopoly, or as close to one as possible. That didn't work out. The UK, USSR, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, South Africa and Israel all have nuclear weapons that we preferred they not have (well, maybe with the exception of the UK and Israel). But they have them now, and we have to cope with that. Nuclear weapons are a problem that we invented, after all.
Same for missiles. Will Iran continue to develop missiles to explore space? Most likely. Would they ever consider putting a bomb on top of one of their bigger missiles and send it off into the wild blue yonder, maybe to Tel Aviv? There would be something wrong with their imaginations if they didn't at least think of it. After all, we have all sorts of missiles with bombs on top of them, ready to fly off into the wild blue yonder. That's another problem we invented, or at least eagerly borrowed from the defeated Nazis.
Has the United States and our allies always been nice to Iran? Well, hardly. The British, French, and the US have been busily fucking over the Middle East for our own benefit for ever so many years. Do the Iranians wonder if they can trust as? I should think so!
The goal is not to eliminate distrust. The goal is to manage a mutually suspicious relationship.
Who?
I think it is more an action...
[b][i]Iran, Iran so far away.
I just ran, Iran all night and day,
I couldn't get away...[/i][/b]
Sort of explains it all, eh?
Meow!
GREG
Who is Spain? Why is Hitler? When is right? Where are the Snowdens of yesteryear?
These words of wisdom have been posted to The Philosophy Forum Facebook page. Congratulations and Thank you for your contribution!
1-20-16 all 5 will be lined up (I think) sunrise here is at 7.08 am, so I might give it a go, I wonder is binoculars are sufficient.
His cosmological myth is perversely intriguing, though. Food for thought, maybe I'll start a post some time later about the personality of a deity.
If you have trouble keeping the binoculars steady, try sitting down on the ground and bringing your legs close to your body, then rest your arms on your knee caps for stability.
Well, I heard some people talking just the other day
And they said you were gonna put me on a shelf
Well, let me tell you I've got some news for you
And you'll soon find out it's true
And then you'll have to eat your lunch all by yourself
Coz I'm al-ready gone, and I'm fee-ling strong
I will si-ing this vict'ry song, woo-oo-oo, my my, woo-oo-oo!!
The giggles are replaced with a deafening sadness and we all trod back to our homes in an expressionless zombie like state. I return to eat a blue popsicle, staring out the window, wondering why the mailman is defecating in the street.
Pretty cool story, huh? Feel free to offer reviews.
Err, I can't think of anything to say. :-#
This explains a lot concerning my own life.
http://static3.existentialcomics.com/comics/sorry1.png
I thought about responding to your thread, maybe latter. I think the question is perhaps best answered about another culture, and in that answer, revelations about one's own culture become evident. (M Bakhtin)
I deal with Canadians, who drive me nuts, so I will comment on them.
Be well my friends~ ;)
Yeah, I even creeped myself out with this post, which means it's a keeper.
Wouldn't your date make a rather large roast? What about your cholesterol?
That's disgusting! A blue popsicle?!
Quoting Hanover
You should wait until you're married before you have sex with her and make her your dinner, otherwise you won't truly enjoy it.
My suggestion is to take advantage of this new cloning technology, where they can create human beings, albeit dead ones, through some sort of sorcery. The lifelessness of the entity shouldn't be terribly alarming, considering it was never alive. I wouldn't even say it was stillborn, but I'd instead call it stilldead, as in it was dead then, dead now, and dead forever -- still fucking dead.
I'm reminded of a trip I once took to England, a place near and dear to some of our posters I understand. I asked the wench (I think that's what you call English barmaids - at least I did) for some water. She said "still"? I said, "yeah, I still want the water. It's only been a few seconds." It turns out they have different sorts of water in England, which I suspect has something to do with the Queen, but I could be wrong. I do know England has a Queen, and America, blessed be she, does not.
Back to the question of whether one should eat the fruits of this new technology. I doubt it's no more unnatural than a Big Mac. It's quite similar actually, as both are covered with special sauces. The Big Mac with some sort of salad dressing and your stilldead princess covered with the emissions from the recent rogering you subjected her to (if I must spell it out for you guys).
I think this has answered the concerns above, where some were concerned about the pre-marital sex aspect of faux-real meat and others about the healthfulness of the substance. I remain open to suggestions, but I think you (and I'm referring to all my readership here - other than the ridiculous wooden shoed Dutch), like me, should be excited about being able to eat (and by "eat" I mean both to consume and sodomize - perhaps all in one setting) this new product.
So, you Yanks don't have sparkling water? Odd. If only you would've been content with taxation without representation and hadn't kicked up such a fuss, then you too could have reaped the reward of carbonated water. But no, you had to go and destroy our beloved tea and win the war.
The actual reason the tea (the national drink of China) was dumped into Boston Harbor (and few know this) was in retaliation against the Chinese for their unfair labor practices, refusal to adopt clean air standards, manipulation of their currency, and dismal record on human rights. While these problems with the Chinese had not yet emerged at the time of the Tea Party, it was obvious they were just a few hundred years around the corner, and the founding fathers wanted to strike when the iron was hot.
True story.
They have been sending balloons southward across the DMZ carrying payloads of... trash. Actual trash -- everything from cigarette butts to (reports have it) used toilet paper. North Korea likes to call "South Korea a land of “political filth” and its leaders, including President Park Geun-hye, “human trash.” So, to illustrate their propaganda with substance, balloons loaded with garbage.
Now, if other militant regimes such as the Islamic State, or Assad, or The Saudis, Iranians, Americans, Russians, etc. wished to wage war -- do likewise. Send them your worst stuff: Collect a few tons of soggy Kleenex, put it in the nose cone of an ICBM, and let Moscow have it: A blast of used tissue and snot. Or all those bags of dog shit collected every day. No one would die, but some people would have to take a bath. Not the worst consequence of warfare.
...it's a Umami rush.
Page 7: How do you know that computers, rocks and hurricanes can't be sexually aroused?
Page 9: Gay horses.
If we allow gay marriage, next thing you know gay horses will be able to marry.
But tell us sir, would you marry your computer? 8-)
Or anything else... Don't be realmist.
Anyway, I apologise for any offence I caused. I didn't mean to discriminate against things. After all, things are people, too.
Wait...
Thanks for hanging with me as I work thru this~
Tiffers
:D
It depends. How large is the USB port?
But I might also add that if it has only a micro USB, the bet would still be on. :D
Ride on then, you 2 byte cowboy.
Thank you SIR, I will try to keep my chin up but not so much as I drown in the rain, with my nose in the air, like others in the family dynamics. Balanced is what I am looking for, fair, something along those lines. ;)
Progresso.
However a search for philosophy discussions produced the philosophy forum on page 11 of the results.
Depresso.
Accents continue to evolve, the linguists tell us, becoming regionally distinct. Some people can hear a distinct accent in Chicago. I can't. But one would have to hear people who have lived there a long time, though, not just arrived 5 years ago. There are, I think, some class overlays, too. Working class Minnesota white people tend to have a slightly different delivery than cultured (or would-be cultured) white Minnesotans. It's not "yuge" but noticeable.
Sanders' family was working class. My pastor was born and raised in Brooklyn too; she's 65. She no more sounds like she came from Brooklyn than Queen Elizabeth II does. Whether she got rid of it or never had it, don't know. My guess is that she was cocooned in a Norwegian Lutheran ghetto (there were, apparently, Norwegian Lutherans in Brooklyn. I don't know why they were there and not on the prairies digging up rutabagas). Upward mobile people generally don't want to own their rutabaga-digging-countrymen.
The sub peeve here is "changed the course of history". History isn't following any course. If it was, the the future would be MUCH easier to predict. On 9/10/01 the management of the World Trade Center would have closed for a day or two. Or guided missiles would have shot the plane down. Or the government would have chosen some other building to knock over, maybe the Sears and Hancock Towers in Chicago.
That's a sub sub peeve -- people who think that the government plots heinous acts and then makes it look like innocent terrorists did it.
I also dislike it when people attach "phobia" to behavior they don't like. Islam-o-phobia. sexo-phobia, xenophobia. Phobia-hobbiests. Just admit it: You think everyone should like everything that lands on the plate, just because you do
English went through a huge "vowel shift" in the 14th century and later, when the continental manner of vowel pronunciation changed (relatively rapidly) from i sounds like long e to i sounds like eye; from e which sounds like ay (as in bay) to e as in bee, the insect? Don't know, but it did and it hasn't switched back since.
Kinda figured it wouldn't since some are convinced that I am a closet Sarah Palin supporter, which I am but my "closet" is full with Prince, Michael Jackson and Barry Manilow all in there. :-}
In all seriousness, Trump embodies a smart CEO's tactic by not having to be the smartest person in the room but by being able to ADMIT your not and allowing that to empower you to surround yourself with those that are the smartest in the room. (Y)
Every person has their area of specialty and we cannot all be the "best" at everything but you can assemble a team of the "best" and be the "best leader". 8-)
Nope. Well at least you didn't say Cruz who is almost comically villainous.
~shudders~
Where's the high five smiley? :D
Some of that home-gown leftist classism.
Some of that home-grown leftist racism.
And from what you just said in this post, yes, you are 'liberal,' even if you don't like the word. Wall Street Excesses?
Sure it is.
And I was just showing why you're wrong. Conversation over.
rac·ism
?r??siz?m
noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
The Democrats in your example most certainly not viewing the black voters as inferior or superior (they are liberal after all). What they may be doing is stereotyping black voters.
But let's be honest here, the Democrats aren't the only ones on Earth that expect a group of people to act a certain way. That's no excuse for their behavior but they certainly aren't alone in their stereotyping.
But liberals are racist.
Also, no it's not. That's not what trolling is.
This is not an explanation. It's an edgy assertion meant to piss people off.
Blacks have suffered from Wall Street "excesses" (or maybe it was Wall Street "normality") at least as much as most Americans have if not more, and I don't know what Hillary Clinton ever did that would make her vastly more attractive to Blacks than Bernie Sanders, other than have better name recognition.
Name recognition is nothing to sneeze at, whether selling Cadillacs or Clintons. If there is no such thing as bad publicity, then the Clintons have just about everybody except Trump beat. Trump and Clinton both have tons of bad publicity to their names, from Bill's "I didn't have sex with that woman" (a hand job doesn't count) on down to Hillary's email server scandal.
Who would do better in November -- Clinton or Trump? Hard hard hard to say, since both of them are doing so well in the benefits of bad publicity department, Trump being nothing but bad publicity. Perhaps blacks see Hilary as the natural heir of Barack Obama, she being his close-second adversary in the 2008 primaries and his Secretary of State. Maybe blacks see the idea of a Bernie Sanders presidency as dead-in-the-water. I prefer Sanders over Clinton, but unless there were a Democratic supermajority sweep of the House and Senate, a Sanders administration would be dead-in-the-water. A Jewish socialist would be about as anathema to the Tea Party as Barack's black liberal.
I prefer socialists, but any Democrat would be better than any of the available Republicans. 45 years ago the poet Charles Bukowski wrote a short story entitled "Politics Is Like Screwing a Cat in the Ass". If we may pause a moment to unpack a word...
Was Bukowski using the word "cat" in the mode of "hep-cats"? Hip, black, cool, 1950s 'cats' (guys) who know the score? Or was he suggesting the slightly more lurid and vivid image of trying to screw a feline in the ass? If you have tried to give an objecting feline a bath, you have some idea of how unpleasant screwing an actual cat in the ass might become.
I think he meant an actual cat. Politics as it is practiced is an absurd, nasty business with 20 claws per cat fully engaged.
Maybe I'll ask everyone here too: what do you identify as politically (socially, economically, foreign-policy wise, etc)?
Good idea. You first. Probably should be a new thread, or limit everyone to 25 words or less.
Thanks, this is what I'm trying to get at. Is it just name recognition, or is there any substance to it?
And it works. It shuts people down, not because there are differing opinions but rather because the aggressive/rude way in which it is expressed. It's an active choice and one that has off put me to the point that I am almost always lurking, instead of participating.
My take, for what it's worth, and I realize dangers for attempting to speak for an entire community, especially one I am not a part of:
Southern African Americans are not New England socialist liberals, and they're also not west coast environmentalist liberals. They are very much like their white counterparts (and neighbors). They are capitalist, religious, and far more conservative on social issues and crime than you might believe. They do not believe generally in an expansive government, and if you sat in on a city council or county commission meeting in a predominately black area, you would not be able to distinguish their attitudes from their white counterparts.
The great division (no big surprise here) between whites and blacks relates to civil rights issues. The Democratic party has defined itself as the party that will protect those interests and for that reason blacks overwhelmingly vote Democrat. If blacks could trust Republicans not to be racist, then there would be far greater support.
And this civil rights issue is very personal to the African American community. It holds (and you be the judge) that blacks in particular are denied opportunity, that the playing field is not fair, and the courts are not just. I say "in particular" because the assertion is not that Asians, Hispanics, or whomever are also similarly unfairly disadvantaged, nor is there any suggestion that the capitalistic system is generally oppressive or unfair, nor is there the belief that American ideology is failed. The belief is that they have historically been targeted and fairness must be rectified, not that the governmental ideology is fundamentally flawed.
To the extent they wish to expand the government and to create additional social security measures, it is not because the government is duty bound to produce such benefits. It's because the government has denied them equal opportunity and it needs to remedy that. The greatest threat to the black/Democrat alliance is black affluence.
In other words, it's a civil rights issue entirely. They wish to wave the flag like everyone else, but just feel that's been denied them. That is what they are fighting for: the right to full citizenship.
I am going to tentatively say that I am a left-leaning libertarian. But I don't participate often in political discussion even if I should so it's not like I would be able to offer a strong defense of my position against criticism from other angles. Bottom line for me is that as long as you don't harm me or anyone else, I don't have a problem with it (why should I?).
Stop hitting on me.
Tiff hrites were. Biff is a character in Death of a Salesman. Great play.
Ran't cemember the serm for lirst fetter twitching. What? Anybody?
A toyous cirthday, Jiff, extra brunchy, please.
Though I must say that someone wished for me to feel my age of 46 and now? I feel 46 even though my cake said Happy 28th Birthday!
Tell me something, does it only go downhill from here but feel like climbing up hill? :s
I just lost a bet that I made some 12 to 15 years ago with a friend. I used to be confident, back then, that we weren't very far away from the development of human level artificial intelligence (decades away at most) but that, in any case, the capacity for professional level go playing performances by computers would not be achieved before that. I now owe my friend $5.
the following from Wired article yesterday:
The phrase "It's not a human move" hit me. How many potential non-human moves are ahead of us and I wonder if we will find them beautiful.
Won't be long before the tax departments starts using these non-human moves, then everyone is screwed.
I like the idea that we will find new possibilities, new ways of proceeding; ways that we have yet to see, or that we can't see because of our own/society's' built in biases.
Well if we are in the late stages of capitalism, then consumption is/becomes the main social value No politician means what it says on the stump, the media knows this and does not care about Trump's message. It's his entertainment value that counts.
The defenders of The American Way, Inc. didn't fold up their tents just because their opposition appeared to have won the war. Roe vs. Wade (1973) was a signal event in right-wing history, and the conservative family lobby hasn't rested since, 43 years now. It has been a long, slow struggle; they haven't won a SCOTUS repeal, or a constitutional amendment, but they have rolled back not only abortion services, but family planning services as well in many states.
And, of course, they aren't finished.
I am on record saying that gay people should not think that the matter is settled once and for all time. Some conservatives are tolerant of homosexuals -- probably have siblings or children who are homosexual -- but the hard core family-focused-clean-conservatives have not made room on the bench for homosexuals, gays, faggots, queers, abominations, etc.
There are several objects-of-reaction to fuel anger: Moslems in America; abortions; legally married homosexuals; transsexuals; trade deficits; job-killing trade pacts; invasive species; deer eating the geraniums; coyotes, wolves, and bears prowling suburban church parking lots for god's sake, etc.
I [i]would[/I] like to see him sit in cow manure and spread it all over his body. That'd be pretty funny to watch. Makes me want to have a gay marriage just so I could invite him.
On the other hand, when a fetus gains personhood is a complicated philosophical question, where even many self-professed liberals and progressives struggle with defining when abortion is acceptable. It's not something that hinges on a few biblical passages, but it's a legitimate area for debate.
The anti-homosexuality opinion makers are vigorous, but appears to be relatively sparse compared to anti-abortion opinion holders. Then too, gay men being openly gay men--as gay men will do--desensitized people over time. (We're here, we're queer; they got used to it like we suggested they do.) Unfortunately, (from my point of view) Planned Parenthood clinics, even one's who don't do abortions, have not desensitized religious conservatives.
The control of female fertility is a major issue in any society, as is the control of females. It's well know that uncontrolled women could devastate the countryside.
No, you are right, New Mexico is as tight as they come. We here in Arizona are the progressive ones. 8-)
This actually feeds into the conservative criticisms of the left, which is that the behavior being advocated is clearly immoral, but that it is being made acceptable by just bombarding everyone with it until it is no longer offensive.
I do think some desensitization was needed on the homosexuality issue because it does evoke a visceral reaction in some, but the real reason that it has become acceptable is that it does not violate generally accepted moral principles such as empathy, compassion, and the golden rule. In fact, its prohibition violates those rules.
On the other hand, the objections to abortion are not entirely visceral, but are based upon questions of personhood. If you are correct that abortion may one day become acceptable simply because people have grown use to it, then that would be a bad thing, and I think the right would be correct in objecting to the legalization of abortion just because it is politically incorrect to object to it.
For my part, I have spent countless hours trying to desensitize myself to lesbianism by subjecting myself to progressively more graphic images of it. I have so far not grown any less sensitive to it, but I will persevere.
As for desensitization, I think I've got to the point where I can read Hanover's posts without committing extreme violence against my keyboard. I don't rule out a relapse though.
Hanover is our resident provocateur. 8-)
Oh, Bless her heart.
She just said that we did not lose a single life in Libya.
Does she not remember our Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty losing their lives, waiting for her to send back up? Backup that never came?
Of course not. She would then have to admit that it wasn't about a video but it was waves of attacks because our Embassy was dealing firearms. She lied to the family members that were present to receive the remains of their children, she said she was going to make sure the guy who made the video would be held accountable, while at the same time telling HER daughter the night of the attack that it was an attack not about a video. The woman CANNOT tell the freaking truth. She is almost a pathological liar, she BELIEVES the lies she spews. How dare her lie to a fellow Mom about their child. Unforgivable.
The woman is delusional and it is sad to hear but better now than after the election.
Cat
Why desensitize yourself from lady on lady love? There might be a role for you if you were to ask. 8-)
Okay but was the "cat" on the mat? :D
Tiff is right. There is surely a part for you to play. Perhaps you could be the butler who comes into the drawing room to deliver the silver tray of drinks, cigarettes, and dildos for the minimally clad m'lady and her lipstick or diesel dyke lesbian friend. Your costume will be a speedo tuxedo (black bikini, black leather vest, spike heels and a tool box with various thrill inducing apparatus. You would of course serve the drinks and explain and demonstrate the use of the selection of devices on the tray and in the box.
You would be the spectator provocateur.
In this case she was talking about the military action in 2011. Benghazi happened later, in 2012, so strictly speaking it wasn't a lie though it was still a gaffe considering most Americans don't separate the two. This is not a general defense of Hilary by the way. I agree with the gist of the other stuff you said about her except the part about her believing her lies. I think she is actually very very calculating just like old Bill. The only silver lining in her presidency will be its symbolism much like it was with Obama. Other than that another four years of corporatocracy.
~shudders~ I cannot stand Cruz, he just looks creepy, feels creepy and switches between overly empathetic to the 'peoples' problem and a Preacher standing in judgement of those below his podium. :s
Please, can we change the rules and have W. back again? (L)
This is a Hanover fantasy, not a Bitter Crank fantasy, so stop with the Hanover imagery and stick to what the women might be wearing and doing. Don't get me wrong, I'd look smart in the speedo tuxedo, but butler boy dress up isn't typical of the sorts of videos I have in mind.Quoting Bitter CrankI'm not so good at the serving role, but I have a real knack at being served. You think you can flip this fantasy around just a bit (and please don't bring in other half naked butler boys).
I see Carter as the worst President of my lifetime. He then was an excellent ex-President with his charitable work. Then he decided to get back into politics and offer his two cents worth on current events, and then he earned his spot as worst ex-President of my lifetime.
I have no opinion on the matter--except that I like Carter for his support of GM crops--but I'm curious: what was so bad about him as a president?
I always felt I was Jewish but Benkei explained that no matter how "Jewish" I may feel, I can never be Jewish. I thought all religions were open to new members. :s
My Mom's idea of the Jewish is what I entered into my own personhood with and that was that if you can, choose a Jewish Doctor as Jewish men in general, do not like to see women in pain, hence some empathy for labor/childbirth or surgery. The second idea that I took away from her was that if you want an honest CPA, look for a Jewish name, the Jewish don't mess with other people's money.
Was she right? I don't exactly know. My OB/Gyn's last name was Eckel (I choose my Doctors based on how unique their last name is) and my CPA? Well he doesn't have a name yet, I'm still counting my own pennies. :D But what I have found is that in listening to "The God Show" where a Priest and a Rabbi discuss ideas and issues at hand is that the Rabbi has a sense of humor towards life that I appreciate. Dry humor I think is what it is called ;)
How does one go about confirming this? Memories are so, ehh...
Hypnotherapy?
Reactions are much more reliable than memories. What makes you think you were molested as a child?
I'm 25 and I can't commit myself to having a relationship with a woman even though I want to...
I'm afraid of sex? Something about it [s]seems[/s] is violent and savage, contrary to my notion/conception of myself...
My father was a weird one and I have a vivid memory of him acting as a gynecologist on my sibling even though he isn't one.
Don't know where to go from here or even should I try and open such a can of worms.
Ehh... If anything the memories are either suppressed, I'm making shit up for attention, and sedatives wiped the memories. It can also be a combination of all three. I just don't know. All I do know at the present time is to keep on functioning, dysfunctionally.
Suppression is a natural tool our body uses to shield our psyche from memories we cannot mentally deal with. I doubt you are making shit up for attention but you are sharing your questions of where the scenario above could have come from. My experience with sedatives is that they can suppress memories, thoughts or feelings but "wiping them" out? I have never had that happen.
A combination of the three? Maybe? Likely? I would guess there is a combination but of two or three I don't know. I am not going to pretend to know your story, your feelings but I can and do relate to your questioning your feelings.
I have a 3.5 - 4 yr loss of memory in my childhood. The age is from 4 yrs old to 8 yrs old. No memories, no pictures, no report cards, nothing. I had only three memories from that time period and those were traumatic, sickening to think about, life and death scenarios. I asked my Mom about it since it was her second husband this time loss happened with and she said she has just blocked it out. I asked my Grandfather before he died and he said you need to ask your Mother. No one could give me any info.
I wanted to know what my life experience was during that time, I wanted to know why I reacted the way I did to some events in life, so I sought therapy. The Dr. and I worked thru the three traumatic events that I did remember, that I came to deal with. Then I wanted to know more about that time period and so we tried regressive therapy and even though I have been able to compartmentalize what had happened, I could not remember anything but those three events. I asked if we could do therapy with medication to bring those memories back and he asked me why? What good would come from it? I said that I would KNOW and he suggested that if my psyche had blocked it to the point we had reached, why taunt it? What positive impact would it have on my life because chances are they would NOT be good memories? I had no good answer for him and decided to leave it there. He assured me that if my psyche felt like I could handle the recall of a memory, I would be the first to know and we could take it from there.
I still wonder some 20 yrs post therapy about the "What if's?" I question my reactions sometimes and wonder what happened during that time frame in my life and maybe that is what is causing my reaction to a given situation but I just move on.
Sorry for going on about my experience but I just want you to know that you are not alone in any aspect of what you are encountering, that there are people here who care and you should feel safe in talking to us.
Be well, keep talking...
I feel you. I'm at that Nietzsche'ian point, where I think "Does it matter(?)" "What's so great about truth"? As some reincarnated past philosopher that I am, I want to KNOW. There is something dark lurking in the shadows; but, I can't really grasp it. Not yet at least. These questions only began to arise recently. I know my father has psychopathic traits that he unleashed on me. But, I never felt so strong in my life. My father did something to me, and in some perverted or weird way I like it. I only have a strong resentment to my mother for being so blind and I have confronted her if this was willingly so she could live with all the amenities provided by the breadwinner, which infuriates me.
I feel different from people around me. I had a mental breakdown when I was 15-16, and then diagnosed as a schizophrenic. I've never heard voices or seen things that aren't there. I am however constantly preoccupied with my sanity and avoid any sort of situation (especially after my short stint with the military) that would endanger my psyche again. As a precautionary measure I take an antipsychotic and an SSRI, which have been a godsend to me as I hate any sort of emotions (both positive and negative).
After trying college and the military I feel like my life is complete and could die at peace. I don't really ponder about suicide; but, it always is a comforting option to me. There really aren't any deterrents preventing me from committing suicide; but, the only thing I want to do is bring goodness into this god-forsaken world. I am currently working on a plant additive (plant growth enhancer) that people could benefit from (farmers, ordinary folk, pot growers). Yields of plants should at the minimum increase by 2, which would be an amazing gift to humanity. Delusions of grandeur? Maybe; but, who cares?
I really appreciate your kind heartedness Tiff. Is Greg still around here? I hope he is OK and would like to chat with him as he's been through this an emerged as a great person.
Best regards. Ehh...
You might want to look into scopolamine. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyoscine_hydrobromide#Interrogation
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyoscine_hydrobromide#Crime
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_serum
Happy St. Paddy's Day!
Finally!!! Someone who feels the same pain of not being allowed to be Jewish no matter how much I might want to. I don't feel so alone anymore.
However about that "adult circumcision" thing? You are in that for yourself. ;) After childbirth? I would be waiting on a time machine and nothing less.
You can convert to judaism. And, you don't have to get circumcised (because you don't have a dick). Of course, if you really want to be circumcised... you could become a male through hormones and reconstruction surgery. Then you could take your newly minted member to a mohel who would slice off the end for you. You could arrange with the surgeon (of your reconstruction) to have it nerve-free so you wouldn't feel a thing. As a matter of fact, you could have the mohel be part of the surgery team, and they could leave a little extra skin on the end as they finish things up, and then he could cut that off, like one snips off a hanging thread. Less chance of infection that way then having your new dick rot off (always a bummer). Recently they began doing penis transplants for soldiers who had their favorite organ blown off in war in the middle east. It seems to work. That would be another route. Arrange to have a pre-circumcized Jewish dick transplanted, then you'd be good to go.
You might not make it into Ultra Orthodox Judaism, but you probably don't want to do that anyway.
I know a female to male transsexual who became Orthodox. This was back in the late 1970s, early 1980s. However, she (later he) was a non-religious Jew to start out with.
You would be required to subscribe to the appropriate Israeli newspaper (depending on which variety of Judaism you elected), develop a New York Jewish accent, eat lots of pastrami, bagels, and matzo ball soup, blintzes, and latkes. None of that involves suffering unless you are a vegetarian. It would be helpful to learn something about Judaism and be able to locate New York and Israel on a map.
You should start using shlemiel, mentsh, schlock, tuches, mishegas (lots of that going around) kvetsh, chutzpah (something I suspect you already have), shmendrik, glitch, shlep, and many other such words. If you study hard, you'll cease being taken for a shiksa and become a yiddisher kop, perhaps.
Shalom!
It is times like this that I wish we still had the likes buttons. I could not stop laughing.
If this doesn't count as stifling debate I don't know what does.
The idea of what would be better than owning a boat? Is having a best friend who owns a boat, applies to Equine as well. 8-)
This is a picture from the Net. I'll take a picture of him soon!
I didn't think The Shoutbox was the best place either, so I took the liberty of splitting the discussion:
The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
I also wish there would be interest for a broader range of topics, but lets hope it's a temporary lull. Maybe the current American primaries mobilise too much attention.
I'm not really having a crisis or some existential whatever. There have simply been a good number of things that have basically made me rather depressed and I feel that I just have to stop for a bit.
I'll be here from time to time, but I need a break.
Meow!
GREG
Be Well Be Positive Live Life and Lavish Laughter over the absurd people and part of life.
See you soon,
Your lil' sister (L)
... things are just peachy.
I'm really beginning to become a serious misanthrope.
Oh well...
... fucking carry on regardless.
Meow!
GREG
Talking it out usually helps. The initial reaction from my poor understanding of psychology is to hold the issues within and hope they go away. Not saying that you have issues, just that there are external factors, as you've listed, bothering you and rationalizing what to do about it here is just about the best thing in my humble opinion one can do...
Best regards!
Speak of the devil...
!
I don't know where that would be.
Philosophy of the deed.
Here: The End of Bernie, the Rise of the American Maggie "the Witch" Thatcher and an Oafish Mussolini
Bleh... I have no interest in giving him attention... his theological anachronistic puritanical teleology strains the eyes. I think that philosophy of the deed is definitely favorable.
Alright. You get the sticks and I'll get the stones. :D
Almost ready for my plane jacking. Wish me luck!
Of course, this will leave all those traditionalists who see their politics as tied to the hatred of gay people without a poltical option. But then that's sort of the point: to remove the hatred of gay people from culture.
Now as I approach 6 years of sobriety this Father's day, I am stunned and feeling unfairly judged by the Medical community. I went in to see my Doctor's Nurse Practioner, that I have been seeing for the last 10 years and another NP was on duty and saw me for my 6 month check up and medication refills. Same meds, same doses for the past 6 years and she said that she would refill one Benzo and not another. I looked at her quizzically and asked why? She said that she didn't feel comfortable in refilling the prescriptions that haven't changed, not increased, nothing, stable as fuck and I was taken aback. I said why not? She said she would leave a note for the NP that I normally see, take my kids and spouse to see, and if SHE is comfortable refilling the other Benzo, she will call the Pharmacy. I was surprised, a bit confuzzled but said sure, okay. Then she asks me which med I want to have refilled, which was a really odd question coming from a NP, not really a choice the patient should be making but okay, so I choose the one that I am almost out of. As she is typing the refills into the computer, she turns and asks me if I am still on Suboxone (med used to get off of Oxy). It has been 5 years since I had been on it and had to think back and I said, um no, I have not been on Suboxone for 5 yrs and the question felt...odd. It felt odd that she wouldn't refill my regular/stable meds but was asking about something so far back in my history. She told me that my regular NP would get the note on Monday and I thanked her for her time and the appointment was over.
I tried to figure out in my mind what exactly was making me feel odd about the appointment and just went on with my day. It wasn't until I was telling Heath about it verbally, hearing myself recount what happened, that I realized she had profiled me. I was speechless and then the more it sunk in, the more worked up I got about it. Not necessarily about this NP in particular but the idea that overcoming addiction of Opiates should ever be something to feel shamed about, as though I was tainted or untrustworthy.
I have no intention of letting this one person's opinion lead me back or weaker to the Dragon I slayed but I have to admit, what she did impacted me. She somehow took a part of my pride in getting off a very addictive, life changing, mind numbing, emotion killing drug that stole 2.5 years of my life.
I don't feel comfortable in telling my regular NP about my experience, even though I should and would over any other topic but this one is so close to my core, that I am afraid of being judged again.
This is pure brilliance:
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbLGG5UGEKw[/video]
Screw the politics, imma join the Night's Watch or the Faceless Men. 8-)
Or plan B, I would set my life's goal as owning a Dragon Skin wardrobe.
I get how people can be entertained by them, but when I want to be entertained, I just watch the show, which is a medium that's more entertaining anyway. I just feel like, if I'm going to invest so much time in reading such a long series of novels, I'd rather read something of more artistic value. Maybe I'm an elitest asshole, but I don't think I am, because I like being entertained as much as the next person.
The news would run stories showing lines of cars waiting at the clinics in the morning to open up so the people could get their fix. That has settled down, and I don't think it's like it once was, although there's obviously money in drugs: legal and illegal.
I've been watching Vikings and The Walking Dead.
I have been meaning to watch The Walking Dead as well. Have you played The Last of Us by chance?
Also, Matthew McConaughey nails his role in True Detective. Absolutely stunning first season.
I don't actually watch very much television. I had heard of sense8 a few times, but then again just a few days ago, so have been watching it. Two episodes to go. Last show I watched was Transparent, which wasn't too bad either.
PSN: TigerSpirit. (In case anyone that happens to read this wants to add me).
Yeah, I'll get around to it. I have to update the system first to use network features apparently... browser still works though!
I forgot Fallout 4 when I moved, a long with a few other things... I had beaten it, but other content is sure to come out for it, so I'll likely have to buy it again...
I wonder what some good ps4 games are, kind of sick of Elder Scrolls Online...
Which ones?
Rainbow Six: Siege is the best game I've played in a while. The Division is all the rage right now. I played the Beta and thought it was alright, but perhaps a bit overrated.
Best book ever.
Borderlands 2. I've been playing it on the PS3 but there's a PS4 version. The Tiny Tina's Assault on Dragon Keep DLC (don't do until you complete the main story) is amazeballs, as is the DLC character Krieg.
What I don't get is how it's often the same people who value film culture that don't see the value in game culture, when many games are much like an interactive film in which you're the lead role. Much like life, actually. We've come a long way since Pong.
My guess is that episode plays itself out throughout the world in one or another every day.
Yeh, it's not so much that you're being a killjoy, but that you're being a selective killjoy.
Mormon?
Did you mean Amish?
Mormons have phones, television, music, Internet and MORE! ;)
That should work.
Do you make a crane noise when you do that up down thing? :D
Yes. Doesn't everyone?
It's a simple environmental intervention that works well. But this wasn't a problem in the past. Like before we put toilets in small rooms in the house. A return to male outdoor urinating would solve the problem. We would like that because it helps us feel one-with-nature.
Rainbow six eh? I might have to try that one. I found out that Dark Souls 3 is out this week, and I liked DS2 a lot, it was frustratingly fabulous.
I've heard good things about that, and recall seeing Tiny Tina in top NPC lists I believe...
I've gotten in trouble a few times for pissing in people's yards. I flashed one woman that walked around the corner, but she was cool with it, but had a nurse flip her shit about it, run out and started freaking right out. Good times.
I play swtor for free but I am about to subscribe for a month so I can get access to dat new content.
It's certainly no skyrim. It's really a generic MMO, and not hugely fun. Maps make it possible though to just completely ignore everything everyone tells me, and have no idea what the fuck I'm doing there, or getting, and just following the map to the thing, and then to the next place without having to spend a second listening to anyone's bullshit. Puzzles are even so easy that they're still faster to solve without bothering to read how.
I am like 2 levels away from max level, but it's basically the exact some shit every zone.
Ha. I was like that when I first bought my headset, and am still often like that now, at least when playing with strangers. When playing with strangers, it stays on mute.
(*Although I did try once in an old PF thread I started, "Is watching TV unethical?" or something along those lines.)
Horror video games are like horror films, but can be better in various ways. For example, they're usually longer and more intense. Soma, Outlast, Condemned and Dead Space are prime examples. I recommend watching the trailers to give you a taste of what you're missing out on.
Cheerleader.
All in good fun. ;)
Minorities are in the movie to stand in place of the Great White Goddess [GWG] and take the fucking for her. If the GWG was going to get fucked herself, there wouldn't be any need for minorities in the movies at all. There would just be big, hulking dark monsters with big dicks and long tails relentlessly tracking the scent (Chanel #5) of the gorgeous blond GWG (usually the daughter or wife of the scientist who pissed off the monster in the first place). Of course it could be angry, jealous, female monsters with long tails and big ovipositors with which they would impregnate the gorgeous GWG, planting their eggs, and then glue her to the wall to wait for the hatching to begin (like in the second or third ALIEN movie). Once hatched, the mini little monsters would crawl around inside the GWG and devour her from within. She would, of course, remain alive until the maggot monsters reached the heart or brain.
You wouldn't want all of that to happen to the gorgeous blond GWG when it could conveniently happen to some swarthy minorities, would you?
I definitely wouldn't want to be alien mouth raped and then give violent chest birth to its rape babies. But as a social justice warrior, I will have to bare that burden... you know... figuratively.
As if horror movies are a representation of the horrors of actual society. Is there anything left for me to do without someone trying to turn it into a political statement? I just want to watch my horror flicks in mindless peace. Can I just have that?
What's for dinner?
I second that motion. :D
What exactly is softball anyway? Easy version of baseball, I presume. (I know, Google it...)
I said your heroin is getting cold. Hurry up. And bring your own lighter and spoon, please.
It's sort of like soccer, except instead of kicking a ball into a goal, you have a person throw a large ball underhanded at a batter who attempts to strike it with a bat and then he runs the bases if he hits it. The other similarity with soccer is that in both you can't use your hands except in softball you can.
Yay! Arkady's back. Or at least was back five days ago.
Quoting Arkady
I've been guilty of this for a long time, and have only recently realised. And I'm from England of all places...
Quoting Arkady
Quoting Agustino
Couldn't help but grin when I saw him refer to that as an objective fact.
Wow. Please excuse me while I pick my jaw up off floor.
Quoting Agustino
Did he really just say that?
Quoting Agustino
Why do people (typically Americans) say it that way? It's like saying that you can teach an old dog new tricks.
Provide me historical evidence for this view, of the kind that there exists regarding slavery of black people during colonial times.
Quoting Sapientia
Yep. The feminisation of men is bad as it is an attack on man's nature. And women are "weak and frail" only in comparison to the physical strength of men, not in a way that is morally detrimental, the way you seem to take it. Women are morally equal to men. Not biologically though. Biologically they are different, and generally men have stronger physical strength than women do. This of course does not mean that women are morally inferior to men. Nor does it mean they are inferior biologically, because women can do a lot of things that men are typically unable to do well. They are just different, and these differences must be respected, instead of crushed. (and no, recognising such objective facts is not being "judgemental" - it's simply looking at what there is).
It's just the icing on his dumbass cake.
More insults and no argument. :)
Well ... it is one Sapientia. Do you want to argue it isn't? Please then, be my guest and prove your point :) I have illustrated by argument why it is objective. I have given 3 arguments in that thread!
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en-GB&source=hp&biw=&bih=&q=mistreatment+of+women+in+history+&gbv=2&oq=mistreatment+of+women+in+history+&gs_l=heirloom-hp.3...2271.23540.0.23669.29.10.3.16.19.0.153.732.9j1.10.0....0...1ac.1j4.34.heirloom-hp..15.14.780.HZnm-8DkxeY
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw[/video]
Face-head. Way to have a face on your head, you goddamn face-head! I bet you wear shirts and touch doorknobs!
Right... so, the fact that modern Western society generally no longer accepts certain traditional conceptions of 'male virtue', has rendered modern men physically weak? What a bizarre thing to say. Fitness culture has exploded in modern times, and outdated notions of gender roles didn't just go out of out of fashion decades ago, they've actually become offensive, and anyone that espouses such views is rightly judged as backwards-thinking, narrow-minded, and loses credibility and respect.
Traditionally masculine attributes are self-control, courage, assertiveness, and independence. I think these are good things, but I don't believe they belong only to men.
As if the saying "I couldn't care any less" versus "I could care less" error occurs more in America than Canada. The imaginary line dividing our frozen tundra from yours hardly limits the flow of misinformation.
That isn't gay in any sense of the word.
Fitness culture has actually produced people with big muscles, but very weak. If you look historically, men were not as bulky as they are now. Julius Caesar didn't look like Hulk. The thing is, because of the proteins they take and so forth, people taking part in fitness culture just look good, but don't actually have the strength to match it. A skinny martial artist can easily prove how strong these guys really are.
The fact you don't respect other thinking regarding gender roles, and seek to impose yourself through social oppression, marginalisation and exclusion, THAT is precisely the EVIL I am talking about. You are afraid to defend your values rationally, and have instead resorted to force. You even admit to it.
Quoting Wosret
Right. You merely prove my point that you want to oppress people who think differently. You want to drive them out of your community because you're afraid of them.
Quoting Sapientia
Right. Don't quote out of context please. You should at least have the intellectual decency to do this. I can understand you have no arguments, and protest nevertheless, but at least be honest.
Explain how you think the context can salvage your comment. However you try to wriggle out of it, to not be interested in women, and to instead be interested in self-development until a certain age, is not gay in any acceptable sense of the word.
If you mean the sexual attraction to members of one's own gender, then that's fine. If you mean lighthearted and carefree, then that's also fine, although a little outdated. But the way that you used it is inappropriate.
And if I cared enough to argue against you, at least with the effort you seem to expect of me, then I wouldn't be posting in the Shoutbox.
This is not individualism Sapientia, but rather lack of community spirit, and selfishness. There's a difference between the two :) .
Why do you think Plato valued homosexual love more than heterosexual love in the Symposium? Remember that Socrates did not have sex with Alcibiades, but rather educated him - that was the love that was valued.
Right, thanks for admitting once again that you are not interested in argument, but rather in using peer pressure to impose your radical views :) .
What has rightly changed is the freedom to choose how to live your life. If you are not interested behaving in a traditionally male or female role, you don't have to, regardless of your biology. If you can find friends and significant others who share your views, then you can live happily ever after, as you should. On the other hand, there's no reason for a woman to apologize or feel ashamed for wanting to assume a very traditional female role or a male for assuming a traditional male role. It's a matter of preference. If man goes to work and does manly things while woman stays home and cooks brownies and keeps the house, I can't really see why I should be offended.
I also think there's a role for manliness and womanliness in their traditional sense in society, and there will be something lost if it becomes some unspoken requirement that men or women act in a specific politically correct way. If we're going to live by the principle of to each his (or her) own, it's got to apply both ways, meaning I can no more condemn a man for his femininity than you can condemn a man for his masculinity, even should you find it backwards-thinking, narrow minded, and lacking in credibility.
I'm not uninterested in argument in general. I just don't care enough to rigorously argue against your claptrap. Forgive me for wishing to spend my time more wisely. Sometimes it's just not worth the bother.
And I'm the one with radical views here? Was that part of the joke? (Is that a smiling emoticon? I can barely make out its expression).
It's different from the one at PF because here you can go on an on and aren't limited to just a few lines.
Maybe it's a good thing, maybe not. I don't know. For someone who logs in daily, it's good because I can keep up with where the conversation is, but for an occasional poster, it might be a bit helter skelter. But I digress... Back to the "men should be men and women should be women" debate.
Because it involves spending time with men as opposed to women if you are a man. In that sense, it is gay, because one is attracted to spend ones times solely (or mostly) with men (hence thereby necessitating that the sexual needs (which DONT mean having sex necessarily) are satisfied by other men)
Yes I understand. You don't want to argue on this issue, for the simple reason that you don't have an argument. Instead, you just want to throw dirt at it and discredit it. That, for sure, you want to do :)
It's the look one makes when being buggered.
That's a bit of a stretch. (If you'll excuse the metaphor :-* ).
I would add a few more: confidence, self-belief, justice, loyalty. The feminine virtues on the other hand are along the lines of love, compassion, kindness, forgiveness, etc. And I too don't believe they belong exclusively to man (or that the feminine virtues belong exclusively to women), I simply believe that generally they are exemplified to a higher degree in men (or WERE, historically).
Note, that contra @Sapientia, independence in the sense he understands it has never been a male virtue. It has never been a male virtue to be a bachelor, to be a playboy, etc. This was a vice, and it was called incontinence among other names (so I don't know from what hat @Sapientia pulls these stories - it's historically inauthentic). What was a virtue was, as you call it, independence in the sense of not depending on family, friends etc. for sustenance, and yes, even for sex. That is what independence means. On the contrary, promiscuous sexuality is a form of enslavement, always needing another, being fundamentally needy - it is not a sign of maturity and strength, but rather weakness and servility.
Yes, historically speaking your views are considered radical. Most human beings who have ever lived in fact would consider your views radical.
Yes this is correct. However, the problem isn't at the individual level. The problem isn't that individual X who is a man has become effeminate (for society at least). The problem occurs when this becomes a social NORM, and that's what I claim has happened. I believe people should be allowed to choose how to live their lives, so long as dangerous and harmful ways of living do not become social norms, imposed by social mechanisms of peer pressure, etc.
In other words, a balance needs to be maintained between individual liberties, and social harmony/stability.
I completely agree. I was only criticising the notion of gender roles, e.g. the role of the woman is to stay at home and cook, clean, look after the kids, whilst the role of the man is to be the breadwinner. That doesn't just have personal implications, that has implications about the entirety of each gender.
How do you know whether or not I have an argument of the sort that you expect? Just because I haven't presented one?
And yes, I've chosen to draw attention to the more absurd and condemnable parts of your posts. It pretty much discredits itself, for what little credibility was there to begin with. I'm just drawing attention to it and commenting on it.
Problem? :)
Nope, it certainly doesn't discredit itself, it it did, then certainly you and Wosret would not bother with the insults.
Quoting Sapientia
Yes, in the absence of an argument, and your refusal to present one, I am forced to conclude that you don't have one, because naturally, if you did, you would present it :)
Gender roles are social expectations from each gender. They are always there, regardless of what they actually happen to be.
No, not contra Sapientia. I didn't say that it was a virtue, so that isn't contrary to what I've said.
Quoting Agustino
Again, you're not arguing against me here, you're arguing against your own straw men. There's nothing historically inauthentic about what I said, and when it comes to authorities on history, I'll look elsewhere. You've demonstrated a severe lack of both knowledge and judgement in that regard.
Proof? As far as I am aware, I was the only one in that thread who provided SEVERAL links to historical sources proving my points ;) . It's easy when we just attempt to throw dirt at others Sapientia (or when the whole history we know is off wikipedia like Wosret's responses in that thread). Try bringing some proof as well, this is, afterall, a philosophy forum! ;)
Ah, I see, you have to add that qualification. Well, now that you've done so, your accusation loses much relevance. Many perfectly acceptable things would be radical in contrast to historical standards.
Quoting jamalrob
Quoting Sapientia
Quoting Sapientia
Right. You didn't say it was a virtue. Then what the fuck were you saying above there in response to jamalrob who used trait/virtue interchangeably? Were you suggesting that independence which is according to you more widely valued in modern Western society among women, and the more independent bachelor lifestyle, are you suggesting these things are not virtues? If you are, then why did you answer this in response to a post that WAS treating those as virtues huh?
See, this speaks for itself. Is this an example of the kind of reasoning I'd be up against? :)
This is a philosophy forum, and we're not children playing hide and seek. If you have arguments you present them. If you don't present them, you cannot claim that you are right, and I have every right to dismiss your claims otherwise :)
They're more than expectations. There's a normative element to it. There's a big difference between expecting a woman to act a certain way and thinking that she should act that way - and purely on account of her being a woman.
People are expected to follow social expectations yes - that's kind of tautological though.
No, I don't think that he was using the two terms interchangeably. I think that he knows full well the difference between a trait and a virtue, and that the former isn't necessarily the latter. I think that he had the foresight to acknowledge, and allow for, the possibility that others in the discussion might not necessarily consider the traits that he listed to be virtues.
I don't think of everything in terms of virtues or vices, as it sometimes seems you do. I was just making an impartial statement about society - past and present. But you're not too far off about my judgement of today's society. I do think that we're better off in many ways since some of those stuffy old Victorian morals have lost their appeal.
Virtue OR traits. Sounds interchangeable to me. He certainly seems to believe they are virtues, I guess we could ask him.
Quoting Sapientia
Oh yes, as if sexual morality was a Victorian concept. What about all of the Ancients? Have you forgot about them? How about virtually every other period in human history? :) The Victorian age was highly immoral in terms of sexuality (it prevented most people, especially women, from enjoying a natural good - many women were expected to act as if they don't enjoy sex even with their husbands - that was insane). Not as immoral as today, but still bad.
Expectation alone doesn't suffice when we're talking about morality. We're not just talking about sociology. There has to be more than that. It's about judgement, and a certain sort of judgement. It's about what it means to meet or not to meet those expectations.
Gender roles are social constructs, not moral ones primarily. I've argued that gender roles can and do have moral impacts on society sometimes.
Capitalising the word "or" won't make your interpretation more plausible. :D
Quoting Agustino
No, I haven't forgot about them. I intentionally chose one which, today, can be used to describe any set of values that espouse sexual restraint, low tolerance of crime and a strict social code of conduct. That sounds remarkably like you.
And note that I spoke of Victorian morality, not the Victorian age. I was speaking specifically of the values that were espoused at the time, not of the actions of those in that era, which may or may not have accorded with said-values.
No you intentionally chose one in order to smear what I try to say, and associate it with something that was evil from the past so as to make it lose credibility :D . Almost all religions and philosophies in man's history have espoused sexual restraint to a certain extent. Why? Why did people feel the need to do this? Do you think they were idiots??
Yes, they have implications, both social and moral. That was my point from the beginning. Their implications are objectionable.
Did you miss that link I posted earlier? There's loads of evidence out there. Do your own research into the mistreatment or oppression of women throughout history - and not just since the 19th century.
Watch the video too, though. :D
No, not all of them. And I'm not arguing against restraint, I'm arguing against restraint that I consider to be excessive - and I'm not just arguing against that either; I'm arguing against your interpretation of what that entails. If it was just your personal view, and you weren't all judgemental about it, then I wouldn't find it so objectionable.
Also, Arkady is right to point out your appeals to arguable authorities and appeals to the masses, as well as pointing out that, being historical, they might not be as relevant or reliable today as they once seemed.
It is true that there are incidents of female oppression in some cultures in the past and today. Notice though that at the same time men were also abused. It wasn't only women. The punishment for adultery, for example, was to be stoned, according to Jewish law, for both men and women. Both men and women were abused during the Inquisition, being accused of sorcery, etc. The percentages vary, but they range anywhere from a low of 25% men, to a high of 50% men (of course, likely to be closer to the lower end - probably around 35% men; this is what I gather from my own readings). What you call "female oppression" in history, I call human oppression, because it applied equally to both men and women. It is true that there were special clauses that applied only to women in moral codes. Why? Because women are different then men, and hence some things will apply only to them. Likewise, there are elements that apply solely to men. For example, in Latin American culture it was common to punish a man who took the virginity of your daughter/sister unlawfully with death. The woman would not get punished. Does this count as male oppression? Perhaps, but I prefer not to create the division. It's human oppression. Also, the link provides no actual historical accounts, just mere descriptions. Real historical accounts would mean citing historians from that time period who claimed that women as a social class were oppressed. Citing a few moral codes from here and there is not the way historical research proceeds. My claim still stands. Women as a social class were never oppressed in-so-far as they were women. They were rather oppressed in-so-far as they were human beings - because men were equally oppressed as well.
Quoting Sapientia
I didn't say all of them. I said ALMOST all of them. It's not just my personal view because this can be proved rationally, as I have proven it using the three arguments I have provided. That it can be proved rationally doesn't of course mean I can shove it up anyone's throat or force people to believe it, but it does mean that if they do choose to believe otherwise they are being irrational - but it's ultimately their choice, if that's what they want.
Nope, nope. Canadians would never make such a mistake! Americans put Canadian flags on their luggage and things when they travel because it is definitely difficult to tell us apart, but the world loves us... Americans... not so much.
If by thinking differently, you mean demonizing, and devaluing people, then yeah, I'm not a huge fan of that. Stopping someone from beating someone else with a stick is hardly oppressing them.
Funny too that you go on about feminization making men weak, and things... you must be quite the action hero. What's your bench brah?
Well, I don't think that ALMOST all of them are idiots, either. But that doesn't mean that their judgement in the very specific respect that we're discussing wasn't poor. I mean, just think of the well renowned people throughout history who have had poor judgement in some respects, whether it be sexism, racism, antisemitism, snobbery, and so on and so forth. It'd be pointless to name drop as you have done, because it doesn't demonstrate what you want it to.
I don't devalue them. If someone chooses to be irrational do you think I am the one devaluing them? I just raise the point that they are devaluing themselves. If they want they listen to me, if they don't, then they don't. Simple :D
Quoting Wosret
The real question is how many people can you defend against, not what's your bench ;) Martial arts is something that I have been practicing for some time though :)
Yes that is indeed true. But note that I have generally referred to the geniuses of mankind from the past when I refer to the Ancients or to other cultures (at least I have clearly done so in my posts, which are scattered in different threads) I think those people had the moral side of the question MOSTLY right. The fact that most of them virtually agree on sexual matters, seems to me to indicate that they did have that bit right. Most of them don't think anti-semitism is good for example. In fact, very few do. Most of them do not agree about slavery in the way it was practiced during colonial times (slavery in Ancient Greece was a different animal). And so forth.
I love how you start out talking about nothing gay whatsoever, and then you just throw it in there at the end as if it's an inevitability! :D
Nothing that involves spending time with men as opposed to women if you are a man is, by virtue of that alone, gay. Nor is the attraction to spend time mostly or even solely with other men. Were monks, for example, "being gay"? :D
That part about sexual needs being satisfied by other men definitely sounds gay though.
See, I don't insult you. If you choose to be a stupid twat, am I the one at fault? I just raise the point of your stupid twattery. If you want to stop, that would be awesome.
More to the point, you're suggesting that general or normalized acceptance of things you disagree with is bad, and ought to be prevented. I saw a Ugandan arguing for the "kill the gays' bill" making precisely these arguments. Totally cool with gays, but it's evil that they are recruiting, and corrupting the young by telling children in schools that homosexuality is a legitimate, respectable life, and isn't evil, or to be despised. In doing so they're attacking the family, and recruiting children. Just the act of publicly speaking positively, or prideful of one's identity, and person if it isn't agreeable to people like you is corruption, and wicked.
No... believe me... that isn't the question... lol... martial arts isn't real. It's just one of the many ways you can be fooled out of money. Anyone that can fend off even two people of decent physical health is pretty fucking awesome. Three is near super human. How many people do you figure your could through your play fighting?
This is a Shoutbox. It's not part of the philosophy section. Philosophy here is optional, and the same standard doesn't apply. :)
In so far as monks also have needs of a sexual nature, they also display a certain gayness about themselves. You think of sexual needs solely as masturbation and/or sex, but that is not true. Virtually all needs of tenderness are of a sexual nature, that is why, as per Freud, one's first sexual interactions are with one's parents.
Quoting Wosret
Indeed boss, but you must first prove that. Then I wouldn't actually mind it :)
Quoting Wosret
Fake muscles aren't real. Martial arts is quite real, I've seen and been involved in some fights (of course it depends on how you train it as well... if you train it just for the kicks, of course it's not gonna be real; most people don't train it properly). I reckon I could take on at this level on as many people as you want of no training, unarmed and average physical stature, until I get tired obviously (which will probably be quite fast - my endurance isn't as good as it used to be). More than 4-5 cannot attack you at once anyway, even if they surround you. Skilled people, probably I couldn't withstand more than two, even two is exceedingly difficult. It depends on the surrounding environment though. In some environments I reckon I could deal with up to 3. If they have a knife, in an open environment, only one skilled person, MAYBE MAYBE two unskilled, but I doubt it. But yeah, martial arts can be quite powerful. I have a woman friend, who is in the army atm, and she used to train at the same place as me; she got attacked by three guys armed with bats in the street. Beat all of them up with no scratches :D .
"Gendered roles" like who does the cooking, cleaning, and laundry, and who does the ditch digging, cattle herding, and mechanical work are constructed, I agree. I think there is much less support for the notion that sexual roles (straight/gay, dominant/not dominant, all that) are constructed.
True enough, a gay man born and raised in Kenya, for instance, which is quit hostile toward homosexuality, isn't going to experience gay social life like some gay guy in Chicago or L.A., because it won't be structured in the same way. His gayness, however, is going to be pretty much the same -- just as a straight guy born in Kenya is going to be pretty much like a straight man anywhere, as far as sex is concerned.
Quoting Agustino
Sometimes? How would gender roles NOT have an effect on society?
Quoting Sapientia
Whose Victorian morality? The Victorian morality of the ruling class, the royal family, the petite bourgeoisie, the working class, or the immiserated and dispossessed? Some people could afford to flout the expected virtue-roles for their class--like quite wealthy men who could hire sex or seduce women (or other men) as they wished. Some people (the very poorest) had nothing to lose. Many Victorian and Edwardian working class and petite bourgeoisie trod the strait and narrow paths of virtue as prescribed by the church (CofE, RC, or Methodist).
***Impacts... Various critics have disliked and complained about the use of 'impact' in social contexts--especially in the late 1990s, 20 aughts. "The success of marriage was "impacted" by television." That sort of thing. I was reading a history written in the mid 1960s and the author used "impacted" exactly that way. "Impact" has "impacted" the language and is probably here to stay.
I doubt it would be much of an investigation, and I doubt it'd boil down to rationality. I suspect that it would rather be a debate over preexisting beliefs, values and opinions, and I suspect that it would boil down to subjectivity.
That would again need to be proven. I think, just like Spinoza, Aristotle, and Plato that we can arrive at morality rationally once we understand the nature of the world and the nature of man (and hence man's place in the world). You'd rather say that we'll have disagreements regarding either the nature of man or the nature of the world, or the place of man in the world. I maintain still that one of us is right and the other is wrong, and it is possible, using reason, to come to a conclusion regarding this.
I thought that that might be your tactic: to define "gay" or "sexual" loosely - so loosely that people might understandably find your usage odd or inappropriate.
Well, if you look at it that way, then I guess we all "have a certain gayness about ourselves", and we're all a lot more sexual then we realise.
Well I don't know how you got your knowledge about martial arts, but I can tell you that your views are unrealistic when it comes to people who actually know how to fight... Just because I've seen such people fight in different scenarios.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I agree.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Because those impacts may not be of a moral nature ;) . Re-read what I have written haha.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Spot on.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Yep, agreed. BC you are indeed a wise fellow, I have to say at least that much!
Quoting Sapientia
Not really, I never really sought to get affection from other men for example, except when I was very young. I am just one example. There're others as well. Also, these uses of words I didn't make up. Freud, Otto Rank, etc. also used such a definition of sexuality. Not to mention the whole Eastern bunch with Kundalini, raising sexual energies, etc.
No you haven't. You have never seen anyone fend of 4-5 decently healthy individuals that seriously meant to do them harm, other than in a movie. I promise. You liar.
My thinking in that regard is closer to someone like Hume, who said things like "Reason is the slave of the passions", "Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality, therefore, are not conclusions of our reason", and, of course, "It is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger".
I haven't seen an actual fight of 1 v 4-5 (if I had, I would have helped the poor guy! lol :D ), but I told you my friend fended off 3 men with bats who tried to rob her in the street (and I really have no reason to doubt her to be honest - no indication that she tried to show off, she really isn't that type). I have sparred against 6 before, and they were skilled. 4-5 decent healthy individuals with NO fighting experience are not hard to deal with, mainly because they have very little control of their emotions and reactions. Their knowledge is low, and my skill is sufficient to take advantage of this. You don't seem to realise that there is a huge difference between someone with no fighting experience compared to a very good fighter, but not such a huge difference between a mediocre fighter and an excellent one. The distance between them gets smaller the better they get. That is why someone like M. Ali couldn't beat up George Foreman and Sonny Liston at the same time. But he could certainly woop the floor with 3-4 average guys with no fighting experience, with great ease.
Ah yes, I already pre-empted that. The problem is, unless you adopt Hume's radical skepticism you won't be able to support that view. And if you do adopt Hume's radical skepticism, I will claim that such a view is ultimately doomed to self-contradiction. If you don't, then it's hard to maintain for example that "it is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger". Why? Because we know that man has a nature, and his nature urges him towards a certain telos, that telos being the thriving of his own being. We know therefore, do we not, that the destruction of the world cannot be rationally preferred, because it would mean that the man in question wants to destroy that on which his whole existence depends (the world) which is irrational. It's contrary to what we know about man's nature, and thus necessarily contrary to his reason. Thus, a man could only prefer that if 1. he was irrational, 2. he made the mistaken judgement that his own being doesn't depend on the world, and thus sees no reason against destroying the world.
I think that's what I mean by affection. I don't just mean validation.
"throws mud*
@SapientiaYes I am waiting ;)
I will at least read what you've said and think it over. At some point. When I feel like it.
Quoting Sapientia
Oh thanks, I was about to suffocate actually....
No. :D
"It is not difficult to avoid death, gentlemen; IT IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO AVOID WICKEDNESS, FOR IT RUNS FASTER THAN DEATH [...] But sure that if you kill the sort of man I say I am, you will not harm me more than yourselves [...] you are wrong if you believe that by killing people you will prevent anyone from reproaching you for not living in the right way" ;)
If we're going to kill you, we'll need an army.
lol... you wanna give me a heroic way to die :P
Most importantly, this is not in conflict with Hume's analysis, for rather than denying the objectivity of ethics, it merely identifies the difference between ethical significance and the presence of state in the world, such that we don't equivocate the presence of some state or value as necessary ethical.
And "proof" has nothing to do with this because it is a distinction of logical category, not any sort of empirical claim or derived statement.
How quaint that I don't disagree with any of this :D
The next time someone's nice to me, I'll kick 'em and say "boom", because they must be an undercover gay.
Which makes your responses in this discussion outright embarrassing. You misrepresented the relationship of Hume's thought to ethics, you committed the category error of suggesting there is "proof" for ethical truths to Sapientia, you ignored the question of ethical truths (e.g. the ethics of valuing and acting towards gay people, ethics of promiscuity, etc.,etc.) which people were trying to discuss, deflecting them in favour of equivocations of ethical truth with whatever values are in power or are popular amongst the people.
Explain yourself.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
And why do you think there isn't proof for ethical truths? (you call it a category error - now prove it!) Granted that human beings have a nature, it follows quite clearly that fulfillment of that nature is an ethical truth. Thus, a proof for an ethical truth is connecting a particular action or set of actions with the nature of man, and showing how such an action leads to the fulfillment of the aforementioned nature.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No, I explained an ethical truth, namely that promiscuity is harmful to both the promiscuous person and to society.
Hume's opposition to "reason" here is against the idea we can find an independent standard which allows us to determine what's ethical. The problem that any approach as you describe in the second paragraph, as already assumed what is harmful, fulfilling, nature or ethical. What you have is not a "proof," in the derived sense, but rather a description of ethical truth.
And you are unwilling to stand on this ground. Every time someone asks questions in terms of ethics, you deflect it to some question of popularity or value already used. Promiscuity, for example, you frequently cite as wrong not because it is harmful, but because so many people throughout history think its disgusting. On gay rights, you go on and on about people having to respect the law, without out any consideration of the actual issue raised, which was whether such a culture was ethical in the first place. All the time you are shifting the question of ethics to some state which supposedly "shows it" rather than arguing it in terms of actual ethics. (such as, for example, "I think it is a good thing that gay people are ostracised and killed in some countries, because the ethical course of action is to act against people who so many in the society find disgusting and wrong." )
It results in an embarrassing set of ethical analysis which puts the meaning of ethics in power (popularity, enforced values, current law), rather than in whether or not action is ethical.
Cite where I've made this claim please.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I have never read a more incoherent sentence. "Something that can be known PRIOR TO KNOWLEDGE". Alright. Same type of verbiage that Hegel liked, I see.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No, I have identified, via rational inquiry and empiricism connected with an understanding of human nature what is fulfilling.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope, I gave 3 arguments why it is wrong (and by the way - yes because it is harmful that's why it is wrong). You should revist that thread. And it had nothing to do with people throughout history. The people throughout history is to provide further empirical authority to the view, NOT to prove it. Proof was given prior to that argument.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Doesn't reflect my current position.
That one. You treat it as if Hume takes a position a position we can't trust anything about ethics. This is not true. He merely identifies what is present can be equivocated with ethical truth.
That's nonsensical if you are talking about ethics. If you spoken an ethical truth, any empirical argument about how many people valued it is irrelevant. It doesn't add anything to the ethical case. The empirical has no authority there.
But that's my exact point: you appeals to empirical states as a demonstration of authority are useless. You are acting like the presence of those empirical states gives your ethical argument force, as if the presence of societies which valued like that, supports the ethical truth you are talking about.
Supposedly, the empirical demonstration is meant to be what confirms your ethical argument such that any opposing position must be insanity.
You make your ethical argument as if looking at those societies grants ethical knowledge you don't already have.
But it does, at least in the recent few threads I saw you in. You went around saying that people in a society which devalues gay people ought to shut-up and take their punishment because it was the law and consider just by many people.
What makes you think the radical skepticism there refers to ethical matters? It actually refers to epistemological matters, and I claim that Hume's ethical position regarding the role of reason ONLY follows if his epistemological skepticism holds true.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
The purpose of that is, again, not to prove the case. It is, like Pascal's wagger, a rhetorical device, aimed at moving the will, not the intellect.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
This is false, because what you are addressing isn't my intellectual proof that things are as I put them in ethics. If you are interested in that, please look at the three arguments I provided, especially my adapted Kantian argument, and my argument from natural law. You misunderstand the purpose of the historical statement, which is, again rhetorical.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Which recent (in the past month) thread do I say this in? Where I have indeed said this (which is about 2-3 months ago), I clarified that it does not represent my position on how homosexual people ought to be treated (ethics), but rather a political position regarding a country's right to be sovereign.
Oh well... Socrates was always out there in the market place no? :P
What are you selling then? X-)
That's why I have to sell it to you.
I think I would like to see the health and hygiene certificates of your suppliers. From what I have seen recently that is in veryyyyyy short supply.
Ouch! :s
Embarrassing, Agustino. Now you are saying that Hume's ethical position is a subset of of his radical skepticism, while trying to maintain that radical skepticism has nothing to do with knowledge of ethics. This is an outright contradiction. If Hume's position on ethical knowledge was dependent position of radical skepticism, then radical skepticism would be referring to ethical knowledge.
I am aware of that. My point is that you are predating it is something else for rhetorical efficiently and so telling a falsehood. You don't say, when making you comment about what people have valued historically, that it has nothing to do with whether or your position on ethics is true and you are just trying to convince people. You act like the popularity is a reason we can trust an ethical argument. The rhetorical effectiveness of this example is built on the lie popularity means truth.
People aren't separate from the countries in which the are living. To argue that gay people ought to persecuted because the governing force in the country wants to is to suggest how gay people ought to be treated. It is to say there is no ethical problem with persecuting gay people provided it is what a governing force of a country wants to do.
Not at all. Hume's radical skepticism has to do with his conceptions of reason and the passions, and the power (or lack of it in this case) that reason has over the passions. In this manner it dictates his ethics. But this does NOT make him a moral/ethical skeptic - he still believes in the virtues, but for different reasons.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope, I don't. That's why I give arguments as well, so that arguments decide the truth intellectually, and rhetorics move the will.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I didn't argue that they OUGHT to be persecuted because the governing force wants to. You misunderstood my position.
Indeed. Which is what makes your argument absurd. Hume's arguments about ethics do not rely on his radical scepticism at all. You are confusing an understanding of knowledge which led Hume to his ethics for his ethics, as an argument, being dependent on radical scepticism.
[quote="Agustino]"Nope, I don't. That's why I give arguments as well, so that arguments decide the truth intellectually, and rhetorics move the will.[/quote]
But that's not how it works. Appeals to popularity work on the idea that many people valuing something makes it important or truthful. The rhetorical device only functions when this falsehood is applied.
Otherwise everyone would just look at young go: "So? That many people in the past valued it doesn't make it truthful. Why would that convince my of anything?"
Yes, you did. You might not have said those words, but that is what your position entails. If the government wants to ostracise, imprison or kill gay people, you argue gay peopled have no ethical leg to stand on. You say they ought to take what's coming to them, that they can't stand-up an oppose the government on ethical grounds, that when the government acts against gay people it will be in the ethical correct (it's their right as sovereign, you claim).
If he didn't take a position of radical skepticism in epistemological matters, then he COULD NOT have set forth the limitations on reason when it comes to control over the passions that he did, and THUS his ethics would have been different. I don't understand why you act like you don't understand this simple thing, and instead keep on trying to contort my words.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes, its untruthful in this sense. So what? Its purpose is to convince, not to be truthful. If you want truth, that's what the arguments deliver. That's why it's arguments + rhetoric, not just rhetoric - otherwise we would be politicians not philosophers. Although I will say that it does pose problems for the opposing view - namely the opposing view must explain, if the view is indeed false, how so many people came to believe it.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Riiiiiiiiiiight.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No I argued they should follow the law while in that country, and if they don't like it, they should try to change it, without breaking it, or move countries. Simple.
I see what you did there, but it makes no sense.
I might be interested in the real thing, but I have no interest in purchasing a pale imitation. You don't strike me as a con artist; more like a Jehovah's Witness: someone who really believes in the shoddy merchandise they're trying to sell.
At least the con artist sees it for what it is, whereas the latter is like someone who has bought into a pyramid scheme and has faith that it's a good investment.
Either I am deluded, or you are deluded, yes I agree :D . So far though, I am the only one who has put forward any sort of arguments to justify their position. So again, I don't know based on WHAT exactly you make your affirmations, except on some fantasies.
That's not entirely true. Anyway, I think a debate/discussion about the Humean points I raised in response to some of your claims would be worth pursuing. Some of your other claims, not so much.
Maybe I'll get back to you. But I don't feel obliged to shut up until that time. You can of course simply dismiss my comments if you so choose.
Of course you are not obliged to shut up. It's just irrational not to, at least from an impartial, philosophic point of view, to claim that something is wrong and yet refuse to refute it. But I do respect your freedom, so continue if you so desire :D
No, it isn't. On the contrary, the opposite is irrational. It's rational to make a claim that can demonstrably be justified. Whether or not one chooses to produce said-demonstration is irrelevant, provided one doesn't expect one's interlocutor to accept the claim on its own merit if it has been called into question, and I've just given that disclaimer.
Fair enough! Bark away then :D
*Pats on the head* Good boy! :D
When you see a couple getting hot and bothered in the street, you tell them to get a room. This thread is for shouting, not discussing. That is why they named it the SHOUTBOX.
*Bites hand*
OKAY! SPEAK UP, THEN!
So if you had to choose only one food to have for the rest of your life, what would it be?
If you had to choose between never taking a shower again or never wearing clothes, which would you choose?
How old were you when you first passionately kissed someone? Where is that person in your life now?
Greek Yoghurt.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Merely out of fear of arrest, the former.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
14. Nowhere.
Well, I'm sure this is enough information to do a full psychological analysis. Please let me know the results asap so I can securely plan for the rest of my life. :P
Everyone knows there are only 3 types of personality; idiots, arseholes, and idlers. Clearly, you are an idler. They tend to dominate in discussion forums.
Apples, ditch the clothes, and ...
I wish it had been this guy I was in love with when I was 17, but alas... Passionate kissing had to wait till 27. Fortunately, though delayed, there was plenty of it after that.
But greek yogurt IS very good [mango, pomegranate, and blueberry] and in the winter clothes are nice.
Apparently.
Thank you for this interesting photo, but I do wonder what life experiences have allowed your dear mother to so convincingly capture this emotion.
Probably her viewing of the home vid you made of you and your dear mother. :-O
Salad because it's healthy and I'll live a long time ;)
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
Never taking a shower.
Quoting ArguingWAristotleTiff
17-18 somewhere then. Where are they now? They're missing in action :-O
What's my result? Serial killer, again?
Try talking then!
No need.
I know, I was just joking :P
Probably Brussel Sprouts, they're great. Both of those options seem pretty sweet, but I think I'd go nudist, I definitely prefer washing to clothing. I was also about 27 when someone first passionately kissed me, though I wasn't really that into them...
No need for that, either. What do you think this is? Some sort of "Jokebox"? START SHOUTING OR GTFO!!!!
I was having a conversation with a guy at work and made the common observation that it would be far more screwed up for a woman to have sex with a German Shepherd than it would a man. While a man would achieve a certain amount of satisfaction from just having something to rub against, a woman would not achieve emotional or financial security from the act, which are the typical requirements for her satisfaction.
This guy responded as if I said something wrong, failing to see beyond the hypothetical bestiality. I therefore took my argument to a woman in my office and when asked if she agreed, she said "totes," offering her unconditional concurrence.
My point here is simply to say that when you meet a woman and intend to woo her, remember she is looking for something more than a randy furry thing to offer her relief, which makes her unlike you, the typical man, a common dog fucker.
I hope to offer these bits of advice regularly on a variety of subjects. Do let me know what might be of interest to you.
Totes magotes.
Oh my, my, that had better be some Godiva chocolate in your pocket because I am PMS'ing and you just offered yourself up as the first male sacrifice of the month!
What makes you think that a hand to hold and money to burn are "typical requirements for her satisfaction"?
That same German Shepard you have been rubbing on might just prove to be 'enough to satisfy her' needs that you might not be considering.
First? Women do not have to shag or rub on another species to achieve "a certain amount of satisfaction" because what used to be the awesome bunny has evolved into something more fresh and delicate looking. Women are doing their part to Green the world too. Second? Some women choose to keep a dog like a German Shepard or a Rottweiler as her friend and defender because no matter how many times he might hump her leg, she knows that giving in, gives up all future control. Pecking order established. Third? She will FINALLY be able to clean the bathroom and have the toilet STAY clean because unlike a man, she can lock the door after she sends her loyal friend OUTSIDE to do his business.
Buddy Guy and Bonnie Riatt - Feels like rain~
Better? ;)
Utter progressive disaster!!
I still don't understand what kind of conservative Hanover is :D
Recently I shared an experience at my Doc's office meeting with a Nurse Practitioner, feeling like I had been almost 'profiled' as a drug abuser and to update you, I was being profiled but not just me personally.
I was miffed enough about the way I had 'not' been treated with the NP that I called and made an appointment with my Doc in the same office to talk about my concerns.
I must tell you that this particular Doctor was the man who changed my life when I was on OxyContin for 2.5 years. I saw him at an Urgent Care center because my Doctor at the time was closed on weekends and I was in desperate need of getting my meds refilled. If I went two hours past my scheduled dose, I would start withdrawing, my body would break out in cold sweats, I was unable to sit still, just could not get comfortable and then the nausea would set in. I was a mess if I was two hours past dose to the point that I couldn't even get out of my car to get my prescription filled, I would wait in the parking lot in my car, until the Pharmacy opened and they could dispense my refill that would be available that day, first in line.
So when I went to Urgent Care the Doc I saw (now my current Doc) expressed his concern for me having been on the Oxy for so long that it was an addiction, not pain. I explained that when I went to my regular Doc and said 2 times a day dose was not cutting it and I needed to find a way off this med, his solution was to add a dose so I was taking it every 8 hours. Then when I asked my Doc how to get off OxyContin, he told me that I could just quit, cold Turkey, at anytime. Horrified, the Urgent Care Doc suggested strongly that I go see a Pain Specialist who also is an Addiction Specialist and I did. The rest you already have a good grasp of from my prior posts but I told you that because I need to tell you this.
The exchange the Doc and I had two weeks ago was about how the new DEA guidelines regarding prescribing narcotics, especially Opiates such as OxyContin, Percocet, Darvocet and all it's 'cousins' in the medicinal family, being cracked down on at the same time that there is a Heroine epidemic in the homeland. We both agreed that the "unintended consequences" or "unforeseen consequences" as the government will claim, is that all those Doc's who were overprescribing are going to cut back so dramatically, that they are literally going to be driving up the use and demand for Heroin.
The solution is much more complex than just cutting off their patients and the current Doctor's under scrutiny are referring patients, that need to be on anything more than what the government says is within the acceptable guidelines, to Psychiatrists and Pain Management Doctors. The Doc and I both shook our heads at what the government is trying to achieve and more importantly how they are going about it. Doc said that Arizona is 51st in Mental Health Services out of the 50 states, so he doesn't expect much luck with that approach and Pain Specialists are going to be under the same scrutiny he is. So the patient is left with few options and we both agreed that unfortunately we are going to see a rise (if that is even possible beyond where it is now) in the use of Heroin and the overdoses that will follow.
I realize it is too soon to say with certainty and I would never judge another person's choices in managing their pain but I have listened to what they have said about the beloved Prince and how he lead such a clean and healthy life. But unfortunately for me, I see the tell tail signs, the sweats and pacing outside of a Pharmacy, the feeling like being under a massive onset of the flu but baby, just one dose, just one single dose of Opiates and it is like some plugged you back into life. The flu symptoms disappear within hours and you feel normal again.
Was it an Opiate overdose in the form of a pill or in the easier to get, harder to control it's dosage, Heroin? Time will tell but I just have this nagging feeling that he might just be one of the first FAMOUS people, whose life was cut way too short (many non famous people are just as much at risk) as a direct result of this recent crackdown by the government on Opiates and all narcotics.
I am not by any means suggesting that any one person does not have the right to choose to take a narcotic or not, I am saying that beginning in 2000, OxyContin was being prescribed at such an astronomical rate, approved and often paid for by the government, that they too own a degree of responsibility, in SAFELY getting patients off these narcotics.
People don't get 'addicted' to antidepressants, but they do get acclimated. I take a small dose daily -- been on one or another for a long time (decades). I benefit from them, but as the 24th hour passes, especially by 6 hours past pill time, and I have forgotten, I begin to experience physical discomfort, a malaise. I've pushed it to a few days without taking a dose and felt really ill and mentally dysfunctional. Maybe in time I would feel normal again, at least physically, but the small dose of serotonin helps me avoid the pitfalls of chronic depression. And, of course, it avoids the deprivation downside.
Effexor, Surzone, et al aren't performance enhancing drugs like Adderall; I'd call it a performance normalizing drug.
You are right in that the body is constantly acclimating and over the past 20 years I have been transitioning from one anti-depressant to the next, when they are no longer effective, some get re-rotated because they become effective again with a couple years of a replacement drug. It is one vicious circle when you bring an anti-depressant on board but like you, it is something I function better on than not, so I remain on.
My concern is not so much for myself at this point because I have slayed the Opiate dragon, though I am FULLY aware that it is sleeping, never dead. My concern is for all of those people who have yet to do so, are going to be pushed out onto the street, to find what their body needs (not just craves) until they can get off Opiates safely without turning to Heroin. If it took me 2.5 yrs under an addiction specialists care, what are these patients going to do? I guess I should disclose that the Pain Addiction specialist who got me off Oxy with Suboxone was only permitted by the state, to have 30 patients on Suboxone at one time. There are not enough Pain/Addiction specialists to treat the Tsunami of patients that is headed their way. Again I ask: where does that leave the patient? Patients typically don't start out on a prescribed pain med to become an Opiate addict but many times that is the outcome.
I am very concerned about what is going to happen to the Heroin market here in AZ, when the high school kids can get a hit of smack for $4.00. Less than the cost of lunch at McDonalds and a lot more mind/body altering.
Done.
That's morbid.
Edit: I read Tiff's question as "where is that person right now".
Hmmmm?
Clinton, more as an anti-Trump tactic than anything else. I'd vote for Bernie if I could.
I don't know anything about this Kasich guy. Is he less evil than Trump and Cruz? I know he doesn't stand a chance in any case.
Over here, in the last general election, because of our FPTP voting system, UKIP, who had the third highest number of votes, only gained 1 seat in parliament; whereas the Liberal Democrats and the SNP, who had the fourth and fith highest number of votes respectively, and whose combined total number of votes was less than UKIP's, gained a combined number of 64 seats. (Not a bad result in terms of the lack of UKIP MP's, in my opinion, but also not very democratic)
I voted for Kasich in the republican primary, who is likely the most electable one, but he's dead in the water. Moderates don't bring people to the polls. They're boring I suppose. One thing Trump isn't, and that's boring.
Clinton on the other hand will win the nomination from an entirely undemocratic method. She used her insider status to effectively block any real challenger (leaving only a 70+ year old unknown socialist curmudgeon to run against her) and then secured the non democratic super-delegates to assure her of the nomination.
Say what you will of the mud slinging and incivility on the republican side, but it is democracy at its most basic unrefined level. The democrats, which hail themselves as the people's party, are looking awfully aristocratic. Hillary is being anointed, not elected, and I'd think that failure to garner popular support will hurt her in the general election.
Of course what I say is traditional wisdom, and this election cycle is anything but traditional.
I wish that my name was "Justin", if it were, then I'd yell "Justin time" every time I showed up anywhere and start dancing. It would never get old.
Oh yeah, I went there, ragging on Canada and how stupid you guys are. Deal with it.
Also, if you listen to how the Canadians talk, you'll pick up on their stupid accent. I'm pretty far away from Canada, so I don't have to deal with their bullshit (thank God), but I can only imagine what the idiots in Montana and whatever else is way up there have to deal with when the Canadians accidently migrate too far south like a lost seagull or something does when it migrates too far north or whatever analogy I'm trying to fucking say. If I were a seagull, I'd fucking fly away from all this shit, but that's another story that has nothing to do with you, so butt the fuck out. You feel me?
But less so than the first answer I was going to go with regarding floorboards and my cellar.
Quoting Sapientia
Kasich is a DHC (Decent Honest Conservative), which is at least partly why he's such a no hoper this cycle.
Quoting Hanover
Your whole two party money-driven system is this. But, yes, keep saying bad things about Hillary and the silly Dems because I totally agree..
All systems are money driven. There's just more money in the US.
I prefer mud slinging to backroom deals, which is what the Democrats have come up with. And, actually, had Trump not been sitting on a billion dollars, he'd have been quickly eliminated by a Republican backroom deal.
See Canadians are nice, it's why we're liked more.
So take off you hoser.
~blissful smiles~ (L)
I was looking at a map once and saw Yellowknife and thought I'd like to go there, so I Googled what there was to do there and there were some fishing trips. I then looked up plane tickets and it was as expensive as going to Europe, and nothing against Yellowknife, but I'd rather be walking around the Louvre than walking in whatever there is up there. I then looked at Google Maps and thought about driving, but it'd take like three days, and nothing against Yellowknife, but if I'm going to drive three days, I'm going to drive out to California where the girls are warmer.
Discuss.
Lets make it bloody quick them because I am almost out of beer. It takes a round trip of at least 4 hours to go and get it, so I might as well take a couple of weeks driving to drink at your expenses.
Not really. We don't do this in Europe (see below). Our politicians do not generally degrade themselves by spending most of their time and energy begging donors for money over the phone. In fact, you don't really have politicians at all. You have salesmen.
Audiobook narrators. Thank the gods for their talent.
Discuss.
But I do admit the older Left has some important ideas, which should be taken on-board!
Watched a documentary on the "rise and fall" of socialism, watched a couple of documentaries on the Chinese revolution and civil war, read a bit on ancient Rome...
Sorry guys, but I haven't even read your replies to me in the Plato vs. Aristotle discussion. It's on hiatus.
Where did I say this? It's less about dressing and more about behaviour. In fact I think women who dress showing a little bit of skin (not outright naked as some do) is good - shows feminine beauty!
Lazy. On the other hand I've also fallen quite behind on TPF tasks... I have 1 PM to respond, 1 thread to open, + answer Willow in the PvA thread!
And yes, I may be lazy (gasp! A vice!), but at least I have peace of mind, so to hell with your precious virtue!
Peace of mind isn't the only good ;)
There are more important things than virtue. Some things just ain't worth sacrificing for the sake of "virtue", in spite of your anticipated protestations. Especially for [I]someone else's[/I] notion of virtue.
I just hope you are pulling my leg here :p
Quoting Sapientia
Incoherent under the system I (and Socrates) present: "Wealth does not bring about virtue [arete - translated either excellence or virtue], but VIRTUE MAKES WEALTH AND EVERYTHING ELSE GOOD FOR MEN, both individually and collectively" - Apologia of Socrates
To use Kantian parlance, virtue is the ground of possibility of any good whatsoever, and nothing can be good without virtue; in fact once it is perceived that virtue is the ground of possibility of good, then it immediately becomes incoherent to think of any good without virtue - just as incoherent as it is to think of a triangle existing in the absence of any space/extension. That's why it does not make sense to, for example, sacrifice virtue in order to be with the woman you love - because she, and everything else are made good only as a result of virtue. That's also why religions advocate to love God FIRST, and only then love everything else - because God (virtue) is that which makes everything else good. This admits that there are other goods apart from virtue, but they are only good if virtue is present.
Quoting Sapientia
Virtue my dear sir is one and the same, regardless of what we may mistakenly think it to be.
Then the system's flawed.
There. I've underlined it for you. That was what you wanted, wasn't it?
Also, I find it silly to call virtue "God" as if they refer to the same thing and are interchangeable. Virtue, my dear, is one and the same. Virtue is virtue and God is God. I can't stand all this God is love, God is virtue, God is whatever, nonsense.
Sure just like "sketch" is sketch and "quick drawing" is quick drawing ;)
Quoting Sapientia
Relative to what? To human nature? I agree. Relative to what you and I think about it? Nope :D
Importance is obviously relative to a subject or subjects, because things are only important inasmuch as they are important to someone or other, and not important in and of themselves. Furthermore, what's important to you might not be important to me - or as important. These are facts - facts which you might not like. You strike me as someone susceptible to wishful thinking. You wish for that which you find important to somehow override all else, so you proclaim it to be an objective truth, as if that will magically make it so. Then you have free reign to dismiss the values and opinions of others.
That's what you may subjectively identify as virtue. Objectively, virtue is that which leads to the flowering of human potential. We may disagree what that human potential is, but one of us is certainly wrong.
Quoting Sapientia
This is equivocation on the word subject. Subject in this case does NOT mean only person. What you really refer to is the grammatical subject of the sentence. To illustrate: "finishing this on time is important FOR THE PROJECT". So virtue is important for the fulfillment of human nature, and the fulfillment of human nature is important for rational individuals.
Quoting Sapientia
I agree. But we're talking on two different levels now. It may be important to you to take blood pressure medicine, and not to me. But that doesn't change that what's important to the fulfillment of your nature qua human being is the same as what's important to me for the fulfillment of my nature qua human being - in this case the maintenance of our physical health.
Quoting Sapientia
I don't dismiss values and opinions of others, I've just argued that values are objective relative to human nature - and not up to anyone's decision.
Both suggestions rankled me and rattled my cage. Especially "white privilege". Gag me with a spoon.
The trouble with these discussions of racism, white privilege, oppression, whose lives matter, which college buildings' names insensitively irritate sensitive young people, and so on is that all of this is is a waste of time.
See the New Discussion: Suck My White Dick.
In other words, what makes someone a better person: good personal qualities. But which personal qualities are good, and what actions constitute conformity with them, is subjectively determined. If there is such an objective truth behind-the-scene, I don't believe that you have recourse to it to prop up your moral judgement. In reality, those we call good are those of which we approve, and those we call bad are those of which we disapprove.
Quoting Agustino
No, we may disagree, but this entails nothing other than that our evaluations do not accord. You may be wrong relative to my set of values and moral judgement, and I may be wrong relative to your set of values and moral judgement, but it's wishful thinking and arrogance on your part to consider your judgement superior and authoritative.
Quoting Agustino
No, it's not equivocation. No, I wasn't "really" referring to the grammatical subject of the sentence. And no, that conclusion doesn't follow.
Importance only makes sense if it can be reduced to a subject, such as you or I.
Quoting Agustino
The maintenance of our physical health is only important if someone or other values it, or something related to it, highly. It can only ever be important if it can be reduced to subjective valuation. Otherwise it makes no sense - unless perhaps you mean something other than importance, such as the necessity of meeting certain conditions to achieve some end. Importance only enters the equation if something is valued, and that requires a subject.
In your example, if you need to take blood pressure medicine in order to maintain your physical health, but don't think that it's important to take blood pressure medicine, then that's only an issue if you didn't realise its importance to you, or if it is important to someone else that you take your blood pressure medicine. Otherwise, if taking blood pressure medicine is not of import to you, then that's all there is to it. It's not set in stone that maintaining one's physical health should take precedence over other things, or even that it should be highly valued. There is no God given commandment: Thou Shalt Maintain Thy Physical Health. And it's not always or necessarily in one's best interest to do so. Nor will doing so always or necessarily make one a better person in an ethical sense.
It may well be human nature to attempt to maintain our physical health, but that says nothing about value, virtue or morality. To assume that connection is to commit the naturalistic fallacy.
Quoting Agustino
Why wouldn't you dismiss (or reject, if you prefer) the values and opinions of others if you know them to be objectively wrong or false? I mean only those which do not accord with this supposed objective standard, which presumably and conveniently accords with your own standard, rather than mine or that of others. Are your views on homosexuality and promiscuity in line with this "objective standard"? If that's what you claim, I find that laughable.
No - not exactly. In other words what makes someone a more complete human being, which is something that can be determined objectively. What makes one a more complete human being is not subjectively defined at the level I am talking of. For example, engaging in activities which help ones community, forming friendships, and so forth are universal and objective goods, regardless of what anyone thinks. You may help the community by working as a doctor, and I as a lawyer, but we're essentially fulfilling the same human potential, albeit in different ways. The ways are up to the person - subjective as you say, but the human potentials which are manifested through the ways are objective.
Quoting Sapientia
I don't consider my judgement authoritative, you are free to reject it if you so desire, although I do think you would be wrong to do so. I do consider it superior, seeing that I can find no reason to cast it into doubt, nor have you provided me with any. When our evaluations do not accord, all that means is that one of us has made a mistake in judgement - one of us is simply wrong about human nature.
Quoting Sapientia
No, it is important even if someone or other doesn't value it. It's important to what it means to be a human being, whether you think so or not - it's important to the fulfilment of human nature. You can be a depressive and not be concerned at all about your health. But that doesn't mean your health ceases to be important, only that you are making a mistake in judgement about your own nature.
Quoting Sapientia
My point is clearly that preserving my health is objectively important to me, even if I can come to such a stage where I subjectively perceive it as unimportant. My nature cannot be fulfilled without it, even if I may mistakenly believe it can.
Quoting Sapientia
Right, it's set in human nature. Human nature is such that it requires physical health for its fulfilment - for its thriving. Whether I think so or not doesn't change this fact. Human nature will still require physical health for its fulfilment.
Quoting Sapientia
No it isn't. One only commits the naturalistic fallacy when one assumes WITHOUT FURTHER ARGUMENT that there is a necessity between something being natural and something being moral. Promiscuity is natural for example. It doesn't necessarily follow that it's also moral. Transexuality is unnatural - it can however, if it is argued for the connection between the premises, follow that it is also immoral. In this case I simply defined morality or ethics to be the study of that which fulfils human nature - that's what I mean by moral.
Quoting Sapientia
I do reject them for myself and in my thinking - but I don't force others to change, because someone can't reach truth through the use of force.
Quoting Sapientia
I think it accords with mine, we can talk about it and see if it accords with yours better than with mine :)
Quoting Sapientia
As far as I can see about promiscuity yes. I have no reason to doubt that. And by the way, I'm not quite sure what the truth is regarding homosexuality and I have stated this before. I stated that I THINK homosexuality is wrong, although I may be wrong. I also stated that I think it is a relatively minor sin, and that the much bigger and definite sin is promiscuity (and of that I'm certain).
Quoting Sapientia
Yes it absolutely is. I've illustrated through the use of everyday language that we can say something is important to non-persons. Furthermore, yes ultimately it will have to be important for a (or multiple) person. But a person simply is a representation of their nature. Thus it makes no sense to say, assuming the person is rational, that something is part of their nature and yet is not important to them. To be part of their nature in this case simply means that it matters and is important for them objectively speaking. Otherwise I wouldn't say it's part of their nature in the first place.
It's white, so you must bring a microscope with you if you want me to engage in that operation...
I agree. In Muhammad Ali's time, everything white was good and everything black was bad. In our time, everything black is good, and everything white is bad. Things have only superficially changed.
No, today we shall be celebrating Cinco De Mayo by letting the Tequila flow and lots of Ole'!
8-)
God, I want to swim in a pool sized marg!
________________________________________
|Some things are more important than virtue.|
"Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you."
No, that's not it. The problem, I submit, is that the New York Times, and others, are classic "elite media" and think they know what is really going on in the public mind. They know what is going on in their readership's minds, more or less, but most people don't read the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, or the Chicago Tribune. Even if 'elite media', these are 'home town' newspapers and not everybody in the 'home town' reads them (there are other papers).
Elite media don't have a lot of contacts among the non-elite citizenry. The NYT doesn't know much about the police that patrol the streets around the New York Times building, or the construction workers that built their building a few years ago, or the workers who maintain the building's machinery.
On the Democrat side, the Times has led off most of their stories about Sanders' latest win with a couple of paragraphs about how this latest win won't put Clinton at risk. If Sanders lost a state, then "it's all over for Sanders". The editors and writers of the NYT are entitled to have an opinion, of course. I've heard that taking opinion as fact can lead one astray.
A lot of Americans are now, and have been, unhappy with national and international policy. Most of them are submerged into a "silent majority" (sic) which is silent only if one doesn't bother to listen.
One doesn't have to BE a poor white or young underemployed debt-laden college graduate, etc. to understand what these people are thinking. A newspaper does have to have numerous contacts in these groups, though, and consult them often IF they want to know what the Proles are thinking.
Unwanted cultural change, unemployment, major debt and a small income, competition from illegal immigrants, and a dozen other issues aren't phenomena that characterize the personal lives of elite media staff. The lives of upper levels professionals are pretty well set. Yes, they could be put into disarray, but it usually isn't systemic, and they have far more resources to cope.
Conclusion: don't count on the New York Times to tell you what's going on in your down-market, low class, underpaid world.
Donald from the 1980s & Hillary 1993.
Fetishism makes the 'real' ideal.
How's this? :P
"Hillary Clinton Gives U.F.O. Buffs Hope She Will Open the X-Files"
Source: http://9gag.com/gag/arKLQWp
Hmm... "Against Moral Objectivism". Will have to check that out at some point, and maybe even get involved. Although I want to focus more on another issue that I've been considering, and which I might create a discussion on. It's more political than philosophical (although the two are of course related).
Oh, and @Agustino I'm not really bothered by the fact that Hume apparently didn't have much to say on the subject of the Industrial Revolution.
That wasn't the point. The point was that Hume wasn't a global skeptic, nor was he a progressive ;)
Hume's philosophy undoes is the assumption that, "by nature," anything will be into the future; it refutes the idea that there is anything logically necessary about human way of life: the notion of a world founded in tradition. It's is this to which you are reacting against in Hume's philosophy, not misreadings of Hume as a "global skeptic" by modern readers.
You can't stand to let your ethics stand on their own. Despite your protests of being "merely rhetorical," your appeals to "nature" are what you genuinely believe. Deep down you think humans have a logically necessary way of life, such that anyone must belong to it, even if that's not how they exist in a moment. What you are afraid of is not global scepticism, but rather an epistemology which denies logical necessity to our existence and a way of life - that which makes your arguments those of ethics rather than an inevitable outcome of existence.
No Hume actually advocates for a world founded in tradition and NOT on philosophy. I don't know what crankery you're on about, but David Hume was a conservative (some would even say the father of conservatism before Burke) and a skeptikos. Skeptics relied on CUSTOM, remember Pyrrho? What Hume hated was the philosophical replacement of custom - Hume would have hated the Marxists, the progressives, etc. And yes, he would have also hated religious believers who tried to use philosophy to impose their way of life on other people and thereby change the customs of the place.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No, this is false.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
There is no logical necessity to morality, because it is based on freedom and cannot exist except for the existence of freedom. But morality is objective - in the sense that it is always true, regardless of what people think. Moral standards are always real standards.
What you want to do is eliminate any thought of the possibility of an alternative ethics system or that the one you are presently using might be mistaken at some point. You don't even want people to think a possibility that, for example, adultery might not be immoral. What you are concerned about is embedding a moral tradition so deeply within in our aesthetic lives the we can't even think of a possibility it might not be true. Your position is exactly the anti-Pyrrhonic dogmatism which is the antitheses of Hume's philosophy.
So you say, but your arguments constantly indicate otherwise. You are always assign people a "moral" or "perfect" nature before or regardless of whether they have it. When talking about people who commit wrong, you speak about the moral version of themselves as if it's embedded within them, just hidden away before its inevitable reveal. In your heart you dismiss the possibility some people will never be perfect, will never be moral.
Your delusion is so strong it even has you believing confessions and repentance obtained through torture; the very anti-thesis of morality and freedom: the idea that you can somehow force people into moral action and repentance be removing their choice. Moral truths are, indeed, objective and always turn. People just don't always follow them, no matter how much you try to force them to. Here you failure is not to understand the significance of moral truth, but rather of choice, freedom and the people in the world. So obsessed with the presence of perfection, you are blind to everyone and everything which is not. (i.e. everyone, including yourself).
"Hume saw the establishment of property as the founding act of civil society, and as we have seen, he explicitly compares this act to religious ritual and views our regard for property as 'sacred' (Enquiry Regarding the Principles of Morals 199, Treatise 524)" - cited from Donald Livingston's Philosophical Melancholy and Delirium pg 38.
Sorry to break the bubble :D
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
How could adultery not be wrong?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
I don't dismiss it, I am aware of it. But what does the possibility that they will never be perfect or moral have to do with their potential to be perfect or moral? I claim they all have this potential, even if some may never reach it.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No I didn't claim such a repentance has to be believed. But such a fake repentance preserves the sanctity of our justice system, and of our society, and it is thus better than its absence. And no, I don't believe that serial killers can be forced into moral action and/or repentance. That's not primarily why I suggested torture as a PUNISHMENT (not as rehabilitation) for them - I suggested it in order to protect the sacredness of our society which is threatened by the unimaginable crimes that they commit AND by their arrogant and prideful attitude. Torture may not make them better people, and it will not undo the wrong they have done - but it will shatter their arrogant and prideful attitude, which is enough to protect the sacredness of society.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Agreed.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
No I am for people striving to be perfect, even if they fail. We all fail. But at least trying to. That much is possible. Someone who is hurt, may become depressed, may even commit suicide because of their wife's adultery for example - do you think such a person deserves to suffer so because of another? Do you not think that he ought to have a means to defend himself, legally - probably through financial compensation and the recognition by society of his suffering and the wrongness of it? Do you think this is too much to ask for - decency and the right to live a protected life in the bosom of society, which at least takes a stand against what is wrong, instead of merely letting it go by?
By definition, there is nothing of perfection in those moment, just abject failure. Nothing can undo this injustice. Torture, jail, financial compensation, recognition of suffering does nothing for this issue. Something is irrevocably wrong in the world. There is no defence for it and no way to undo the suffering it causes. We cannot be protected from injustice. We can only avoid taking part in it.
Society cannot give us protected life. There is no bosom which can insulate us from the possibility of injustice committed by human freedom. Existence is not necessarily moral, no matter what we do. Even if we were perfect, moral acts would still not be necessary. There would always be the potential of some injustice taking place.
"Deserve" has nothing to do with it. Suffering happens whether people ought to experience it or not. Some people will suffer from the unjust actions of others and there is nothing we can do about that. Killings, bashing, payouts, shaming and apologies don't bring back what's been lost. A man who has lost his wife to another still goes without his "true intimacy," no matter what punishment or compensation he is given. Injustice has no fix. We can't "make-up" perfection by doing something else.
You are attempting to bury our failures beneath an egoistical notion of perfection. You see our statements of intent ("trying" ) and assertions of value and force (torture, fake confessions, etc.,etc.) as if they can make-up for injustice. They cannot. We only have an imperfect world to love and we must do ethical actions to do what's moral. Trying for perfection is nothing but failure.
Yes we can - striving implies that we have no reached perfection but nevertheless we aim for it. Do you think we can't aim for perfection, and hence cannot try? Why?
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Not from its possibility, but society can ensure us that those who do injustice to us will be repaid back with what they deserve.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Yes - so what? The purpose of punishment is not to bring back his wife. It is to punish the wrong-doer so that they recieve what they deserve.
Quoting TheWillowOfDarkness
Do you know what justice is? I might send you to read some Republic so that you learn. Justice is to do your own role/duty, and not interfere with the roles/duties of others. It is having and doing of one's own, and receiving what belongs to oneself. The criminal deserves punishment - that is the fruit of the seed which he sows. Thus society must deliver punishment to the criminal, and honor to the righteous man! Such is a just society.
I am doing better now that I feel like I can jump back into the shoutbox ! I am a bit worried about how long Mayor has been away but hopefully he will jump on this thread with us!
No need to read Agustino's torture thread then.
(And my subscription still reads "cancelled")
When school resumes in the fall, he will be driving himself, leaving him to come home on his own. Freeing me up to return to college to finish my degree. 18 years dedicated by NicK and I, to raise the Indians with at least one parent at home, 24/7, has produced some amazing kids, an amazing family and a kick ass tribe! (Y)
We had to chose between having the kids while we had no money but were young enough to have boundless energy or wait until we were older and had boundless money but no energy. We went with the former and now I am in search of this boundless money! ;)
In all seriousness, my Grandparents did the same in that my Grandmother was not 'allowed' to work until my Mom went to college. My Grandmother went to work for International Harvester and was a woman who blazed paths in a man's world. Grampa only 'allowed' her to work outside the home, at IH, if she agreed to not use any of the money for household expenses but rather bank it for extra money in their retirement. O:)
For us? The money I earn will BE our retirement! I am up to the challenge! And when I find myself not up to the challenge, I will fake it till I make it! And when that doesn't work, I will turn to you, those who know how to bs better than I. 8-)
"and now a letter from the editors:
?
it has come to the attention of kjulat management that a previous posting, looking at a swan boat, did not meet the strict quality guidelines that kjulat readers have come to expect. while the object in the center of the frame was indeed a very pretty swan boat, the dear respected leader was looking upwards, perhaps towards the sky for the purpose of protecting the korean people from floating imperial aggression. whatever thing the supreme commander of the korean people’s army was looking at, we shall endeavor to report upon it accurately.
?
the personnel responsible for this error, whom the korean people regard as worse than dogs, regret their indiscretions before the world and have been ordered to spend 22 days reflecting upon the ways in which they have failed the juche idea."
Check out Jacobin.
It occasionally has some good stuff, but much of the time I find it embarrassingly bad or downright ugly, in both style and politics. It can be unwittingly funny though. One of Eileen Jones's film reviews is subtitled "The communists in the Coen brothers’ Hail Caesar! are silly caricatures, but the film upholds basic Marxist premises" :D
https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/03/hail-caesar-coen-brothers-marx-clooney/
Granted, a strike by telephone workers (Verizon's, currently) is relevant. But it isn't revolutionary, and it doesn't really merit the heavy duty rhetoric used in reportage.
Leftist publications (and not only them, of course) tend to take the same approach to every issue they cover -- If it's important to one small oppressed group, it's an issue we must all salute. Every battle is urgent and critical, requiring militant support and non-negotiable demands, etc. And the rightwing equivalents on the other end of the spectrum do the same thing, of course, and are equally tedious.
I cancelled my subscription to the New York Times today. Partly to save some money, but also from fatigue with their content. Somebody jokingly said that if a meteor was going to hit the earth in a month and destroy all life on earth, the New York Times' Headline would be "WORLD TO END: Women and Minorities will be Disproportionately Affected."
I've been thinking about cancelling for quite a while. The newspaper is pitched to an economic stratum to which I do not belong, and I am tired of it. I am also tired of the NYT's editorial stance. It's liberal, which is more or less OK, but it's also Clintonian. Each news story about Sanders' progress is written in the context of "But Clinton is still ahead, and that's what matters". And sometimes there is a kind of denatured, post-national approach to culture which I find extremely irritating. Yesterday there was an editorial about what it means "to be German". The editorialist offered no definition herself of Germaneness. One might conclude that in her view, "being particularly German" of necessity means Nazi, anti-semitic, racist, and so on. So real Germans, in her view, are pro immigration, very welcoming to Islam, and so on and so forth. Germanness, Frenchness, Dutchness, Itialianness, Finnishness, Englishness, Greekness, etc. has no commitments to its own heritage. If it does, then it's elitist, racist, Islamophobic, imperialistic, and so on. Bah, humbug!
IN THESE TIMES
THE NATION
THE PROGRESSIVE
DISSENT
MONTHLY REVIEW
NEW POLITICS
JACOBIN
Meow!
GREG
You might have missed the fascinating discussion of toilet utilization by transgendered persons. There was also the "Should torture be a punishment for horrendous crimes?" business. There was a lobby for horrendous torture being used for instructional punishment. You know, the old Gestapo methodology. Not out of fashion in some quarters, it seems.
Sounds like a typical election year in the USA.
I suppose there was a religious spin to it all. Probably less to do with theology and more to do with loving/caring/self-justified Bible thumpers demanding death to anyone who isn't like themselves ormeeting the standards of the god they invented in their own image. In short... philosophy need not bother.
As for the Dostoevskyish debate of "crime and punishment"... was there the great appeal as to what exactly is "torture" and "horrendous crime"... probably hinting that torture is maybe itself a "horrendous crime"?
:-d
Meow!
GREG
I sort of had that fear.
Prior to the seeling of the old place, it seemed to have a strong decrease in, well... engaging conversation. The slipt probably was at a vunerable time for the old place.
The new place will take time and is indeed on rough waters. Sailing off to the new with vivid memories of the old is difficult, especially for creatures of habit.
My life has take quite a few twists and changes in the past 10 months. Nothing really worth mentioning here or anything to worry anyone here either, as really there is nothing one can do to help. Let's just say that my Sisyphus lost his grip on a few stones and they rolled right over him (at high velocity) on the way down. He's been shoving fewer stones up hill recently and just trying to recover from the past impact rolling stones. I suppose he's gathered a bit of moss.
My only outlet for "philosophy" has been a few select people in my life and my anthropological investigations into Facebook. :-O
Meow!
GREG
That's the spirit! (you know I can't do that even if I tried!)
Meow!
GREG
We always seem to be at war somewhere, and it is just not our dead, but as is in the case of Iraq, I saw the figure 650,000 civilians died in that senseless war.
Proxy wars have been fought instead of the Titans clashing. That's very bad for the proxy nations, but probably a good thing for the world as a whole. We don't really want to march into WWIII just yet.
Casualties in these proxy wars have been, and are likely to remain, quite asymetrical. They lose a lot, we don't lose too many. IF we go mano a mano, then we lose more troops of course: 50,000 in Vietnam. (The Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians lost a lot more--millions.) Mechanization and robotics allows us to target individuals without having to put a two legged sniper within range. It also allows the enemy to place very powerful remotely operated bombs.
It needs to be remembered that the US doesn't maintain a world-wide defense structure to achieve better network ratings during sweeps week. The wealth of the Uber-Rich is scattered around the world. They insist that it be protected.
Now, individually you and I may have little stake in the various flows of world trade, but policy was never built around what you and me wanted in the first place.
I wish I saw this warning yesterday before I posted a song link in FB, but it did get quite a few likes (even "loves").
(Atleast I was wearing a Captain America t.shirt at the time.)
Meow!
GREG
Welcome who, good to have you here.
Quoting who
Grateful to anyone who can help make that happen! The main thing from my point of view though is maintaining quality, and while it is a little quiet, I think we have that in abundance here.
I'd suggest the admins create a sacrificial lamb (name him "Fucker" or something clever like that) and send him in with a stupid post (like "I think America isn't great") and I'll hobble him and leave him helpless in Baden's bed in just his underwear.
Yep, this post should spruce up place!
I can.
Racism
Sexism
Amateur psychodynamic prescriptions
Defenses of torture
General angst and drama
Stay tuned for more.
H8r.
Ha.
Discuss.
OK, so your lack of maturity seems to be disrupting your relationship with your cat? :s
It's time to grow up to the facts of life.
She is not your cat, you are her food and comfort provider.
Now get used to that idea and suck up the sniveling snot. 8-)
Ah, those good old days of schadenfreude.
Hanover, you do remind me of Gerald. Remember him?
Quoting Hanover
I was discussing this with my cat, but just when I thought we were getting somewhere, I realised that my cat was in fact a crumpled top on the floor of my dimly lit room.
Afterwards, over tea and crumpets, my cat and I had a jolly old chuckle at my predicament.
"I would like to be remembered as a man who won the heavyweight title three times, who was humorous, and who treated everyone right," he wrote.
"As a man who never looked down on those who looked up to him, and who helped as many people as he could. As a man who stood up for his beliefs no matter what. As a man who tried to unite all humankind through faith and love.
"And if all that's too much, then I guess I'd settle for being remembered only as a great boxer who became a leader and a champion of his people. And I wouldn't even mind if folks forgot how pretty I was."
R.I.P.
Ali
Ditto.
Tiff, how can you defend a guy that thinks he owns a cat. Although, maybe he is from Alf's planet and he bought it in the supermarket.
:D Sir, you have no idea how many men think they umm... own a cat! :D
Welcome home!
Happy Belated Birthday Hanover!!!!
Wishing you the best of love, life and laughter in the new year ahead! Cheers!
Hippty! Hoppity! Happy Birthday Mayor!!
Wishing you the best of success in the year ahead, the wind at your back as you ride and the power to tolerate another US election cycle! Cheers!!
Threads are worth starting, despiteyour latest detachment from creating them. So yes, regardless if you think threads are worth starting, they are worth continuing, until...one of three things happen.
There comes a time when threads have run their course, have gotten dissected enough that there is a necessary end to a thread. The end can display itself three ways. 1) The responses become further and further apart in time but not necessarily in space 2) An explosive end where people leave the thread feeling misunderstood or invalidated in what they are thinking, likely to cross contaminate in a similar thread 3) The thread is so offensive it gets locked and stored away somewhere in Wales. ;)
Big Cheshire cat grin. >:)
... this really says it all.
"In California the sun isn't everything
No the sun isn't everything
There's just something about the light
That lets all of us think
That their problems aren't our problems
And that your problem isn't my problem
That her problem isn't his problem
But let's just pretend
That we're all in this together"
Ain't that America?
Meow!
GREG
Apathy, ennui, hurt, and aggression are indeed the inevitable end of every thread. You deny the premise you are invited to assume, and then provide an argument in favour of it. This is merely a way of distracting yourself from the conflict that arises from trying to deny the obvious. As you will no doubt deny the compassion of my pointing it out to you. ;)
I was wondering why I didn't remember you, so I looked into it, and I discovered that you were known as BalanceofEquilibrium. I remember you.
I shall suffer in silence.
50 Americans.
"Fifty Americans perished today in Orlando, Florida. More than fifty Americans are still fighting for their lives, or recovering from their injuries. These Americans were met with violence and hatred; acts committed by a coward.
You’ll note I said Americans. I did not segregate, classify, label or otherwise place a silo around those who were attacked. Neither should you. To do so mitigates the gravity of the situation. It divides us, and in some small minds, will make it ok because it was “them.” That is the most UNAMERICAN mindset one can have, especially right now. Why?
Wake up! We are under attack. It is our freedom the enemy hates, and this enemy knows how we segregate ourselves. Even as we fight for unification and equal rights for all Americans, we still place ourselves in categories. This exposes a vulnerability that the enemy just exploited.
The best thing we can do is stand together, right now, as Americans. Show no quarter to our enemy, instead show a unified wall of pure American will and strength. You may just find that those self-imposed labels no longer matter after all.
It’s time to stop hating each other for our differences. Embrace those differences as what makes us uniquely American, and turn that anger and hatred toward those who would do us harm."
You send us a stock photo from Hong Kong while sitting sadly in your hovel fighting a rat over your last scrap of bread.
I am unamerican.
Amongst other un-nesses.
Terror is a feeling, so to eradicate a feeling in every living being, would be impressive.
Um ok. Did someone actually suggest that the massacre was less significant because of the sexual preference of the victims?
No but have you seen any pictures washed with the American Flag?
My point is that this was an attack on the LGBT community, America itself and the values we hold dear and many that outrage the rest of the world. Hate will not win this one as Americans, we are better than that.
ps...now I am off to camping in the woods without wifi for a couple days so I won't be able to reply, it is just my current thoughts.
What I think, in the back of my mind, is that any gun related massacre will always seem a bit more justified the world over, not necessarily here in the USA, that suggests that it is almost a self induced consequence because of our gun laws or lack there of.
How can I argue that? (L)
Yes you did. You called them Americans.
Which isn't even true, as some of them weren't American.
;)
Busted 8-)
Had you not tried to gather up our guns and impose your rule on us, the need to bear arms wouldn't have become necessary.
The reason we broke free, by the way, had to do with the miserable cooking more than anything else.
So you insist on keeping your guns so that you could stop your guns from being taken? How pointlessly circular. ;)
Happy birthday, whenever it was. How old?
I turned twenty-eight years old last Saturday.
One day closer to death.
Catbird, Catbird, haven't you heard?
Catbird, Catbird, come and say a word.
Catbird, Catbird, fly down from your tree.
Catbird, Catbird, I beseech thee.
Going anywhere else in Cambodia? I loved Siem Reap.
https://www.tripadvisor.com/Hotel_Review-g293940-d1757733-Reviews-The_252-Phnom_Penh.html
This place is pretty nice, and I think it's within your budget.
Yay!!!
90 degrees huh? :-}
Sounds like a cold snap to me! 8-)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N7HNJVnn9Ms
Meow!
GREG
You are kidding right? :s
Fast forward to the year 2016 :D
Have you not seen the Air B&B commercials, about not just visiting another country but actually living another country, if only for a night? 8-)
Does Atlanta not have cable tv? :P
For all you know, your children might be renting out the basement to some summer fling girls looking for a place to crash for the night! :-O
I like staying at Holiday Inn wherever I go in the world. It's a slice of US in middle of wherever you are. If you complain about service in a US hotel, it's a bit of a different experience than when you complain to a local. Just saying.
I hear you on the expense part but even I rented out our back acre for horse people coming into town for the last Super Bowl! Yeah, not many as you can imagine but it was worth a shot!
Quoting Hanover
I like the complaining idea and use it on occasion but I imagine I could throw down a tantrum that would need no words and my point would be made. I am AWESOME an sign language! ;)
A "racket" I LOVE! It has always been a great experience with a homey feel. I love, love, LOVE Air B&B and Uber too!
Hmm...... You don't suppose that slick Willy is trying to wax up the head investigator of his wife, Hillary, do you? >:O
This whole freakin system is rigged to keep the Dynasty going. Do you realize that if "IF" Hillary is elected President that it will be the first time in history that one President has marital relations with another President?
Scary, I know.
I was sure LBJ had something going with Tricky Dicky, but what do I know?
What do You think?
Eight days and no Shoutbox chat. What would you guys do without me? I am the saviour of trivial chit-chat.
She said: "I could envisage a situation where you had no regulation whatsoever, no minimum wage, no maternity or paternity rights, no unfair dismissal rights, and no pension rights - absolutely no regulation whatsoever for the very smallest companies that are trying to get off the ground."[/quote]
And this could be our next Prime Minister. :-|
I think that's a great plan.
Which is better: No jobs or a job with limited benefits?
What's better is not making those the only two choices.
No jobs. There is no virtue in work that makes it worth doing for its own sake. Unlike play. Let's give all the jobs to robots.
What Baden said.
That's beyond cynical... so the suggested plan is an insidious covert scheme to erode workers rights? Or the instant someone becomes inclined to begin even the smallest business they have given into the dark side?
It seems to me rather, that the more demands, regulations, and red tape to work for oneself, and employ a couple of friends favors big business, that despite heavy regulations are more and more immune depending on their size, even avoiding human rights, and worker rights, by outsourcing the work beyond the borders and jurisdiction of their nations.
The smaller and smaller the business, the less they can get away with, and probably the less they're trying to get away with.
Don't you know about the Conservative Party? That's what they do. They have a long track record of doing so and attempting to do so. You're not from the U.K, so your naivety is understandable.
Quoting Wosret
Red tape?! You'd fit right in with the Conservatives with that lingo. This is not "red tape", these are fundamental workers rights: minimum wage, maternity or paternity rights, unfair dismissal rights, and pension rights.
Quoting Wosret
They shouldn't be legally entitled to get away with treating workers as if they did not have these essential rights to protect them - regardless of whether or not they are actually doing so or trying to do so, which no doubt many were, at least in the past before the introduction of these workers rights.
You think that it's okay to yank away the safety net, for what possible reason other than that it is viewed as a hinderence to the profit of business owners? I say that that is wrong in three respects: it is the wrong way to look at it, it is wrong in principle, and it is wrong because of the detrimental consequences to employees and prospective employees.
Workers have rights? Why wasn't I informed? Get rid of them, immediately. (The rights today, the workers tomorrow, then the rise of the robots.)
The virtue of work is in earning your own keep. Whether the work available to you is virtuous in some other regard might be an added benefit, but there's no virtue at all in not working and expecting someone else to provide for you.
But the reality is that sometimes those are the only choices. If you decided tomorrow to open a candy store and needed someone to help work a few hours a day so that you wouldn't have to work 80 hour weeks, it would seem a better option for both you and someone who needed those few hours a day to accept your employment. If, however, you were required to fund all sorts of benefits and to provide a high minimum wage, you could not afford to hire the person. That would neither benefit you nor the person who wanted the job, and maybe you couldn't stay in business as a result.
Why is the idea of giving folks the right to freely contract to do whatever they want such a bad thing? It's pretty ridiculous having to tell people they are victims when they insist they aren't.
No indeed, and only those who inherit wealth are in a position to do so.
So we're in agreement: all should earn their keep, with equal scorn heaped upon the rich and the poor who are relying upon others.
Work not worth doing for its own sake? Gracious, what ever happened to the Protestant Work Ethic? Work itself enables and ennobles. So says Luther, et al.
Play is worth doing for its own sake? Probably, though all homo ludens all the time sounds ludicrous and tedious, too.
You want robots, and then the extinction of most people's raison d'être? It's probably on the way sooner than you think.
"Under capitalism, everything is reduced to the cash nexus. What is the cash connection for people who have no role to play in the creation of value (as in value, price, and profit)? They'll be lumpenized for sure.
Look at it this way, protestant. Only the devil makes work for idle hands. One does not go to the trouble of dirtying the dishes to create some washing-up, rather one does the washing up because the dishes are dirty. One does not either wash the clean dishes because washing is good.
It's viewed as a hindrance to starting, and maintaining a successful business, and businesses that have three or less employees. Tiny businesses, that wouldn't have as good of a chance existing at all if there were too many obstacles. Do you disagree that this would be the case? As for the objection, I don't even understand what it is other than paranoia, and speculation. I don't find it plausible that this would open things up to wide scale worker abuse.
Or those that chose to marry it. :-}
Am I THAT someone?
Simply? There is a rough match of blue vs black in the streets of America.
Simple details? Those sworn to protect us came under mortal attack, while protecting it's citizens who were peacefully protesting.
Latest rumor? The New Black Panthers are rising from within and the shooter in Dallas was a member of and stand for killing white men.
Possible? Probable?
Moral quandary: this is the first time a domestic robot intended to blow up devices was used to blow up a citizen. Is there a lawsuit coming from the manufacturer of the robot? Surely there will be a lawsuit coming from the shooters family for being blown up with a pound of C4. Which begs the question, is it fair play to attach a bomb to an extension of the 'law' that they were using to communicate with the shooter for hours and one minute you are talking and the next minute BAM! ????
To our resident attorneys: at what point did the suspected shooter give up his right to due process and the right to face his accusers?
I don't know what the layout of the parking ramp and the location of the shooter was. Apparently he was cornered, but he was apparently in a mutually 'out of line of fire' location. The robot solved the problem of ending the gunman's continued attack, but raised a potential problem for future uses of such a device.
Police can shoot if they, or the public are in danger (as they and the public were in this case). But how distant and safe from immediate harm might the police be in the future when a robot is used to kill a gunman, bomb-thrower, or suspected suicide bomber, etc?
It isn't this instance that is disturbing, it is future, more novel instances that are of concern, because there is no court guidance here. (Battlefield rules presumably don't apply to a late afternoon in Dallas, Denver, or Des Moines.) Will we find drones loaded with a pound of C4 explosives landing on cars that refuse to stop? Will robots be used in crowd control (robots not loaded with explosives, one would hope)? How far from the robot may the police actually be? May unsworn officers operate the robot?
If a drone or robot can reach somebody who isn't an immediate threat to the public or the police, is there any justification in using this technology? EVEN IF an officer would be authorized in using deadly force, if he or she were close enough?
I don't want battlefield conditions to apply to police. I don't want them subjected to rifle fire or bombs for which kevlar vests are not protective (which brings up gun control) and I don't want the police using battlefield devices on civilians. Supposing the robot had been carrying something else: maybe a canister of tear gas and a percussive (not lethal) explosive. Surely that would have been distracting enough to provide an opportunity for the police to safely pounce.
I'm not worried about the gunman. He was doomed by his own actions. I don't want undesirable precedents set, and I don't want government policy moving in the direction of more and significant restrictions on liberty. You don't either, I'm guessing.
And when that is the case, we should rebel against it, and strive to bring about a better, fairer, more just version of reality.
Quoting Hanover
Driving down the rate of pay wouldn't be a good thing for anyone except those who gain a bigger surplus as a result. And I don't know how anyone can, in conscience, argue against rights such as the right not to be unfairly dismissed or the right to maternity leave.
And what makes a business successful? Profit. And at what cost? At great cost. Those three or less employees should be entitled to the same basic rights as anyone else in similar circumstances. Why do you think it would be okay for a small business owner to unfairly dismiss an employee, but not okay for a slightly larger business to do so? Starting a small business is a risky endeavour, but workers shouldn't pay the price by suffering abuses just to pave the way for a less bumpy ride to creating surplus wealth for the employer.
Quoting Wosret
Yes, and I'm sympathetic to an extent, but some "obstacles" are there for good reason, and to even consider them primarily as obstacles is to not have your priorities straight.
Quoting Wosret
I get that you don't understand, and I'm not sure how much I can help with that. It is neither paranoia nor speculation. Like I said, the Conservatives have a track record for this sort of thing. Have you actually looked into this? I have lived through it and have seen it, although I only lived two years under Thatcher, when it was arguably at its worst, and I was just a baby at that time. Neither your ignorance nor your perception that it is implausible is enough to refute all of this.
I don't think that people need to be forced to treat others decently and fairly, and small businesses with just a couple of employees will be working directly with them, and will not require government intervention, regulation, or to hire another employee just to deal with all of the bureaucracy. I don't care if what I'm saying makes me sound like this or that partisan... which is always itself a highly partisan accusation...
Let's say a guy opens a little 'convenience shop' on a shoestring. The shoestring has to cover some equipment, stock, rent, etc. He might have put all his savings into it. There is no guarantee of profit or solvency, even, within a year. The risk is all his. He'll probably work most of the day that the store is open. IF he can hire someone, it will be for a short number of hours at the lowest possible pay--let's say $7 an hour. The owner himself may well be making no more than that per hour.
How can the owner pay more that the absolute minimum required, and give the worker an 8 hour day, plus health benefits, retirement, vacation, etc. He can't.
Lots of small businesses -- cabinet shops (custom woodworking), dog grooming salons, little stores, very small cafes, etc. are more or less one man, or family operations. IF they ever become profitable, it won't be right away (9 times out of 10). They may spend years only breaking even, if that.
Law usually exempts this sort of business from requirements that can not reasonably be met.
Sometimes people have immediate success, and start making lots of money quickly (and honestly). Chances are, they won't be able to make much money without expanding their labor force (like turning the little cabinet shop into a furniture factory). If they are so successful, they will quickly fall under the regulation intended for larger businesses.
Some rules cover everybody. You have to pay people the agreed upon wage and benefits. You can't legally operate a (literally) toxic, poisonous work place, even if your business is small.
Making $14 a day working for Joe's Grocery and Tobacco won't keep anybody alive, true enough. But the labor market is layered. The teenager who has not worked much probably isn't ready for an 8 hour shift with responsibility. Working 2 hours a day after school (while the owner rests after working for 10 hours, with 4 more to go) will be a good deal for all concerned. Eventually the teenager will be more experienced, more mature, and will want/need more money. He can then go looking for a better job.
Capitalism isn't a charitable operation. We should do away with it, but UNTIL WE DO, we are stuck with its terms of creating surplus value.
I do not want battlefield conditions to apply to police either. In fact I think they would have a lot easier time if they were called Peace Officers which is what we are really looking for, peace. If authorities are considering using a robot again, I think that there should be more ideas of what can be attached to the robot in order to neutralize a threat, discussed BEFORE it's use becomes necessary.
Answer: America.
I heard about that on the radio. Is it some sort of hook up app?
Definitely nicer than my car though, now rather than shitty my vehicle is average! Hazah!
The Truck is a 2006 ford f250 triton. It's a huge monster. I'll have to get used to it.
Woo Hoo!!!! Nice ride!
So the next time I need 10 bales of hay, I can call on you for help with a pick up and delivery? No sniveling allowed tossing bales and cold brews to follow~
Game?
Big trucks fuck, little cars suck. Un grand baise de camion. Les petites voitures sucent.
Google translation isn't sure whether "big trucks fuck" means that a big truck is a whore, or a big truck kisses. Was Google Translate being perceptively subtle or just wrong? Don't know.
That sounds like a nice relaxing day off from the physical demands of roofing, lol. :D
It is, in fact, as big as it can be while avoiding requiring commercial license, visible license number written on the truck, and requirement to stop at weigh scales when hauling. What surprised me though, today, was that my bosses f350 isn't as big... I guess it's because mine is the long box or something, but I'm like a foot higher.
They were all fairly impressed, nicer than their trucks, at least arguably. I like all the cool shit it does, like the remote start, with temperature gauge, so I can start the truck from inside, and know when it's warm enough! I'ma love that this winter.
You lost me pretty hard after "that's a big truck", but thanks!
Still, that lucky sob. I never play lotteries or anything, probably why I never win. He does spend like a couple hundred a week on lottery stuff though, at least. Probably paid for the car by now, so sayeth my resentment.
Don't play the lottery. It's like pissing money down a drain.
He definitely wants money. He doesn't plan to drive it, and when it gets it, he plans to get it flatbed hauled to his place to keep it at zero clicks. He will probably get 60k for it.
I have no plans to play the lottery, my lucks not so great.
LoloLOllloLoloLoooolOlolOll lol :-!
If you are roofing in 110* + for the 14th day this summer?
I am buying! ;) The guys around here start before sunrise and are done by noon. Then it's a cool beer, some beans, rice and an avocado before siesta. Waking for a brief interaction with the family, dinner and in bed soon after the sun.
Yeah, it is hot, but you can't do long construction in the city before like 7 or 8 am , 10 on Sundays. We can do a good 60 bundle house, starting at 9 by about 2 or 3. I would be surprised if there were a faster or efficient crew. People will work their asses right off, and for no extra benefit if you're setting the pace.
You're right, it's damn hot though. I lose like six lbs everyday of water, I'm constantly downing sickening amounts of water. Yesterday, the home owner brought us coffee and doughnuts... I was like we aren't business people in an air conditioned building, cold drinks would be nicer...
If I start at 9, I can do a 90 bundle house and sexually satisfy the entire neighborhood by 11. The only part you beat me on is that you only lose 6 pounds in body liquid a day. I lose a good 20, but I've got the ladies to deal with, so it's understandable.
Yeah yeah, sure sure.
Self esteem is an important property of personality. After all, one can go for several months without a single pat on the back (not to mention all the stabbings).
When I were a lad my pa had a Lagonda; it had reverse threads on the wheel nuts on one side so they wouldn't come loose. Ask a physicist which side. It also had a built in hydraulic jack system. The good old days...
A lot of old Willis/Jeeps had left handed threads on the front axles as well to stop them from shaking loose when under traction. They should be on the right hand side.
On one old Commando I had the front axle got bust and there were no replacements available. I had a brilliant idea to fix it though. I found another axle that was bust on the other side and swapped out the sections. Made the car 8 inches wider at the front but increased stability incredibly. So I did the back axle as well.
Indeed. It follows directly, as shows, from the first law of thermodynamics - "Everything gets screwed up clockwise."
ISIS now claims the attacker, but there are doubts.
Actually came here to shout:
Comrade Trotsky’s once wrote:
“It is not the party that makes the program[platform]; it is the program[platform] that makes the party.”
The UK predicted to be worse off economically. Thanks brexiteers.
That's where you're wrong, but I'll be glad if we don't put it to the test and find out the hard way.
I don't know why you're asking me these questions. You should be entitled to a reasonable amount in both cases, but what constitutes a reasonable amount is of course arguable. I don't believe that either of us accept, for obvious reasons, that an employee employed by an employer should be entitled to anything other than only a certain amount, so I don't understand why you seem to be addressing the absurd notion that an employee in those circumstances should be entitled to [i]any[/I] amount whatsoever.
(I'm tired, please forgive the grammar; I know it's a mess)
The new owners don't instill much confidence over a timely fix.
It's slovenly practice, and unnecessary. Mrs. Trump presumably has an interesting enough story and a standard enough outlook on the future that she doesn't need to borrow her thoughts from Michele Obama.
Thieves with at least a touch of craft personalize the lifted text: they juggle the word order, substitute something here and there; change the punctuation, mess around with it until it doesn't look like cut and paste composition. Mrs. Obama didn't say anything earthshaking, of course, but it's always surprising that 5 different and independent writers can say exactly the same thing using different words and/or different word order. That's why plagiarism sticks out like a sore thumb.
You would think even a cut rate liar would know that.
;)
Dunno...just dreaming about Winterbury our dream B&B that is built out of A frames that are each individually owned but we will manage the rental time when the owner does not wish to have their cabin reserved. It will cost about $100k per cabin and the owner can choose to have it reserved all year for themselves or a day, it's all up to them. There is the ability for the owner to make money, it's all in how many days we can rent out when they are not there.
We will build the Main house of Winterbury where we will provide a game room, the Kitchen and dining room. Staying with us will include a homemade hot breakfast of recipes that will blow your mind, a celebration in your mouth, a foodgasmic experience for sure! 8-)
Our guests usually travel away from the ranch by Jeep or horse, either of which can accommodate a 'Picnic Lunch' (for an extra charge)) and then return for dinner offered in our dining room or via in cabin dining. The Kitchen at Winterbury never closes but does take a snooze. During the hours of Midnight and 4am, guests are encouraged to feed their need. The Kitchen is stocked with the makings for just about any craving, feel free to make anything you wish, our kitchen is your kitchen.
I could go on and on and on but I know I would bore most. But a dream is a goal that hasn't been written down, so I write and write, 25 yrs I have been writing.
That's precisely what I'm saying.
I consider this post of yours an excellent secondary source for gaining a full understanding of Hanoverian thought.