-
Is it rational to have children?Please participate in @Thorongil's recent discussion, which, as he said, is nearly identical to this.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3306/are-there-any-non-selfish-reasons-for-having-children -
Why Was Rich Banned?
But of course looking through a post history you won't see the most objectionable comments that get any member banned because they would normally have been deleted. Anyway, though I am not as familiar with Rich's case as others, I know he merited discussion in the mod forum and several warnings as mentioned, so it wasn't a rushed decision. -
Why Was Rich Banned?Baden's initial comment
unreasonable antagonism towards science was a part of it
— Baden
was a little disturbing. — Srap Tasmaner
No idea why. My comment is consistent with both what @fdrake and @StreetlightX wrote. Note the word "unreasonable" which is akin to not giving reasons and the phrase "a part of it". -
Why Was Rich Banned?
Ah, I think you told TimeLine already. I'm still waiting for my declaration of undying love. -
Maxims
Oh, stop moaning. We got rid of the moron trigger just for you. Relax, celebrate, dance. -
Integrating your Shadow
Well, we're all bundles of drives vying for control of an ego which needs to self-identify as a unity in order to function properly. The shadow is just a fancy name for some of our more "dangerous" drives. Let them out to play in the real world sometimes in a controlled way and you may find less need for the fantasizing. -
Games People Play@TimeLine Every special day is contrived and commercialized, which is why you should resist the urge not to go along with it to some extent in the full knowledge of that element of absurdity. A fear of the absurd suggests an absurd faith in the non-absurd imho.
-
Why Was Rich Banned?
He was banned a while ago. I can't remember the details but unreasonable antagonism towards science was a part of it, and I think he was also on a warning. @StreetlightX or @fdrake may be able to tell you more. -
Queued for moderation?
I think there was a spate of M0r0n name calling a while back that made it a useful short cut for moderation. -
Queued for moderation?
Don't know. The only trigger word is "Moron". Maybe you accidentally flagged it yourself? -
Queued for moderation?
Posts that are flagged by other posters get queued for moderation. Sometimes, it's an accident, sometimes not; sometimes it's justified, sometimes not. We take a look then and decide what to do with them. Your post was fine so I released it from the queue. -
Beautiful Things
Headquarters of the Indian communist party. Somewhere in India... Lenin was diabolical but I think masterful is more what they are going for here. -
Games People PlayI tell @Baden I accidently had sex with his stupid fucking dog last night thinking it was his mom — Hanover
Hang on, if you were banging my dog, who—or what—was I banging? :grimace: -
Wiser Words Have Never Been SpokenLol fuck Nazis and fuck anything they do and fuck any shitcunt who supports a Nazi. — StreetlightX
-
Just a little fun: Top Trumps Philosophers
Looks like no-one answered your question. Maybe:
Output: e.g. Aristotle ~100
Cool Factor: e.g. Camus ~100
Influence: e.g. Plato ~100
Controversy: e.g. Nietzsche ~100
For those who are not familiar with Top Trumps>>
-
Currently Reading
The Freudian in me says your subconscious may have done that to you. I bet you don't pay too much heed to Freud. The Freudian in me says your subconscious does though. The Freudian in me still hasn't explained why I pay any attention to the Freudian in me. Mysterious. -
If you could only...
-
Giving everyone back their land
If that's all your argument boils down to, OK, I'll leave it to others, but nobody here is claiming or is likely to claim that the first inhabitants of any particular tract of land have exclusive rights over it forever. -
Giving everyone back their landRe: your edit
The 'we were here first' argument doesn't work. — jastopher
What specific quote of mine is this supposed to connect to?
This is the second time I've asked you. The last time was your "Er no" which you have still haven't connected to anything specific I said. That's not how it works. I make a point, you address it and vice versa. -
Giving everyone back their land
No, I don't think we simply need to go down the first come, first served route. It's much more complicated than that (and that should be crystal clear from what I have already said in this discussion). Everything else I dealt with in my last comment. -
Giving everyone back their land
They really do talk funny up there. I've seen enough Coen brothers movies to know that. But the meatballs...
The only recourse that protects nations from being over-run is defensive warfare — Bitter Crank
Historically that's been true, which is part of the reason for the development of the United Nations, and international law in general etc., so you're not supposed to get away with it any more either legally or morally. (Obviously if you have done already for hundreds of years, it's too late to do much about it, but that's not a good argument for laissez faire now.) -
Giving everyone back their landWhat other type of right might we be talking about? — frank
Legal rights under national and international law guided by treaties, mutual understandings, precedent etc. -
Giving everyone back their land
In the case of Zionism in particular, there is that element, yes, but national identity is not solely based on race and religion. You can be Palestinian and Christian, Israeli and atheist etc., so it's not a particularly accurate way of viewing the situation. -
Giving everyone back their landThe idea that diversity is a universal good which communities at all levels ought to seek is a current vogue, at least for the last several decades. "Ethnic cleansing" appeared in print only in the mid 1990s. — Bitter Crank
Ethnic cleansing is "the mass expulsion or killing of members of an unwanted ethnic or religious group in a society" so you can be against diversity / multi-culturalism and limit immigration accordingly (that's a legitimate position to take in my view), and also be against ethnic cleansing. And I'd presume most of the anti-immigrant crowd would be against that. -
Giving everyone back their landI don't have a 'reasonable claim' to somebody else's property because of my race or religion. — Londoner
So what? Palestinians and Jews have claims to this land because they live there and have lived there historically not because of their race and religion. -
Giving everyone back their land
You can take your hate for Zionists elsewhere. Address the general principle under discussion or don't post. -
Giving everyone back their land
Both Palestinians and Jews have reasonable claims to the land in that area. Zionism is the Jewish part of that claim and it's been internationally recognized as valid. That boat has sailed justifiably. The issue now is how to find a balance with the Palestinian claims. It won't be by pushing the Israelis into the sea. -
Giving everyone back their landThe right of Americans to posess the land and to create their system is based on nothing other than political acceptance of that right by Americans and to some extent the international community. Should Americans begin to question their right to the land and should the international community question it, their claim to the land will be weakened. — Hanover
That's more or less it. Although the pressure the international community can bring to bear on a particular country depends to a large degree on the relative power of that country so we don't always get fairness in this process.
Baden
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2026 The Philosophy Forum