• Kant and the unattainable goal of empirical investigation
    By “universal” he means it holds for all rational creatures, and it's based on a priori structures of knowledge that are independent of experience (though they only produce knowledge when applied to experience). — Jamal

    What do you take to be the a priori structures of knowledge?

    This paper (https://philarchive.org/archive/MARIKT-2#:~:text=With%20epistemic%20conditions%20of%20understanding,such%2C%20bring%20about%20experiential%20knowledge.) in reference to a paper by Strawson, states it is two things: (1) the receptive faculty and (2) the active faculty. The first references space and time (which is how we receive information) and the second references how we understand the information through concepts.

    So, (1) we must receive all knowledge under the constraints of space and time in order for it to be at all intelligible to us, and (2) we must then do something in our minds to create concepts from the information we receive.

    #1 are the basic intututions and #2 is the transcendental unity of apperception that holds our thoughts together as thoughts.

    Assuming I got all that right, my next question is whether your comment that "By 'universal' he means it holds for all rational creatures," is itself a priori true or a posteriori true, meaning must #1 and #2 logically exist for a creature to be rational or does it just happen to be the case that rational creatures on planet earth have #1 and #2 and that makes them rational, but one could be rational with other a priori structures?

    I ask this because if Kant can say that these faculties we have are the only faculties that can yield rational results, then he could possibly escape idealism because he'd be saying we have that which we must have in order to have true knowledge.

    I don't like that solution. It feels like Descartes' injection of God into the mix by just declaring that there's no way we'd see things in a wrong way and that the way we see things must be right.
    Objectivity is not transcendent, but immanent... It might be fair to interpret Kant as establishing objectivity only by downgrading it to a feature of the subjective. — Jamal

    Saying "objectivity is immanent" is tantamount to saying it is subjective isn't it? Doesn't immanent mean to be something that comes from within the perceiver?
    Real objects, objects we can know, are objects in space that are given to us in perception; these phenomena are beings of sense, whereas noumena are beings merely of understanding. — Jamal

    I don't follow this. What would be an example of a noumenal being of the understanding? It would not be something we could sense for sure, but what is something just in my understanding? This almost sound like Plato's forms.

    I posted a long response to you on the old forum, attacking your notion of distortion and attempting to show that it was incoherent. Looking back, it might have been badly written--you never did reply--but I'd still want to make the same point. — Jamal
    I'd like to think you've been checking back daily for a response for the past decade like a spurned lover only to feel the relief now of a reply.
    Only a signal can be distorted. That is, only one's perception is subject to distortion. The object perceived cannot itself be distorted by its perception.* The noumenon is the concept of a purported thing beyond possible experience, and as such cannot be distorted.

    That is to say, there is nothing there to be filtered or distorted. Simply to be an object of knowledge is for a thing to be known via the senses and understanding. If there is no possible disembodied, unperspectival way of apprehending a thing, then the idea of distortion has no meaning.     — Jamal
    Going back to the article I cited above, where it describes the information (and I don't know a better term for this because I think I'm describing the noumena) brought in through the senses that is then registered as being in space and time and then it is formed into a concept of my understanding and then I have what we call "phenomena."

    Is it not correct to describe the phenomenal state as a modification of whatever that primordial mass was that that preceded the formation of the phenomena? I use modification and distortion interchangably here, unless you think that's not a fair move for some reason.
  • Kant and the unattainable goal of empirical investigation
    (we can know things objectively). — Jamal

    To think about objects transcendentally is to think about our thinking about them, to investigate the conditions of our knowledge. — Jamal

    What does "objectively" mean as you use it?

    If we concede there are conditions for our knowledge and our knowledge is subject to those conditions and if those conditions are peculiar to the perceiver, how is our knowledge of anything objective?

    The transcendental perspective does not mean the true perspective, such that the empirical perspective is false, illusory, defective or distorted, since in science we have no interest in noumena—mere objects of thought—anyway. — Jamal

    If upon transcendental contemplation we determine X,Y, and Z are the conditions for our knowledge, doesn't X,Y and Z become the lens upon which we view the noumenal and what we then actually perceive we refer to as the phenomenal?

    I get that science will only concern itself with the phenomenal, but I don't see how you reject the suggestion that the phenomenal is a distortion of the noumenal. Isn't the phenomenal just the noumenal filtered through X,Y, and Z as you described it?

    Your description of the transcendental was most helpful, but with Kant I'm always stuck with the meaning, purpose, and relevance of the noumenal and the difficulty in saving him from idealism.
  • Ten Questions About Time-Travel trips
    As a time-traveler, you should not be visible even in 1 second past time. The present moment is very short, and if you are not in it, you do not exist in the present. — BC

    To the extent the rules of time travel are as you say they are, I just went back in time and changed them. I can now stalk myself like I was talking about.

    Keep up this chastising and I might go back and take you out of existence.
  • Ten Questions About Time-Travel trips
    If you could go, would you go? — BC
    I'd go 1 second back so I could follow myself closely one step behind myself. When I talked, there'd be an annoying feedback echo.

    It'd freak out the people around mes. That's me with an "s" because I'm plural.
  • How Do You Think You’re Perceived on TPF?
    The thread was supposed to be about how we thought we appeared to others, sort of a test of self awareness, but it's instead become an assessment of others thread.

    In the Hillary-Trump debate, the moderater asked Hillary and Trump to say something nice about each other, which I thought was the only interesting question.

    Compliments are more challenging, not because we can't think of things, but because it takes us out of our comfort zones to be nice.

    I ate dinner at a Mormon's home, and his 5 kids took turns before dinner telling each other what they admired about one another. That was not an event that ever happened at the House of Hanover.

    Anyway, I throw down the gauntlet. Only compliments.
  • Unperceived Existence
    ↪OwenB
    A for example:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_detecting_exoplanets
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    ↪unenlightened
    But that is all speculation, even if you think they are good guesses, still you're guessing.

    That the earth is changing is clear. That we'll not adapt isn't. We're resilient because that's how Darwin made us.

    We've got to admit to our biases (myself included) in constructing our narrative that fills in the blanks of what we don't know. If we start with the notion that we're a parasitic species ravaging a gentle planet, particularly barbaric in our economic and social methods of controlling resources, a coming apocalypse comes as welcome news because it can be used as argument to preemptively and radically change our society immediately. That is, the capitalistic party was fun, but it's over. Time for rehab.

    My approach is to deal with the fall out when it falls out, but not because I'm reckless, but because I think your speculation is pure speculation and most likely wrong, so your solutions will be ineffective and more destructive than the disease.

    It's the end of the world as we know it and I feel fine.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    All of it, or just your tribe's? — baker

    Everyone but you.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    Billions will die. The human population will crash. We are in overshoot, and the planet cannot sustain us in our current numbers or lifestyle. — unenlightened

    This is not what the science shows. There are no meaningful models that predict the human response to the climate change as it occurs, as if to suggest you can know what mitigating responses will be available. That would be like predicting in the 1800s that we would one day run out of horse food due to the ever increasing need for transportation. The fact that we can sustain billions of people on the planet would have been unfathomable a few hundred years ago.

    Here's where I think we disagree (among other things): I find no virtue in protecting the planet for the planet's sake. I don't care if we lose thousands of polar bears if it means the promotion of human life, the continued promotion of the capitalistic system, and the continued centralization of power in the hands of the United States. I don't believe in equality.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    I don't think you can avoid the class system. Someone is going to have to do brain surgery, oncology, anesthesia, etc. and if they only make the same as a farmer makes, not enough people will go into those fields. — RogueAI

    I was being sarcastic. Pol Pot killed 10s of millions of people in his attempt make Cambodia an agrarian society. That is to say, I agree with your comment. Equality is not a virtuous objective.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    1. Global temperatures are rising as the result of human activity.
    2. Humans ought to modify their activity in order to lower global temperatures.

    #2 is a non-sequiter.

    #1 is an empirical statement.
    #2 is a moral statement.

    This is a form of the naturalistic fallacy.

    We cannot say that because something is naturally in state X that it ought be in state X.

    This is to say the question over the science isn't where the philosophy is. Either the scientific modeling is correct or it isn't. If it says the tides will rise, then they will. That does not mean we can't allow them to rise and deal with the consequences as opposed to stopping the rise.

    The statement "We ought let the tides rise if it means preservation of our current capitalistic economic models and structures" is the moral claim. To deny that claim is to take an anti-capitalistic stance. This is where the debate actually lies. It's a battle over economic policy, not over science.
  • Climate Change (General Discussion)
    Make no mistake, if it were up to me, I would populate the entire planet with plants, re-create natural environments as they were prior to humans. — baker

    If we could remove the people from the cities and recreate an agrarian society, we could get back to our natural roots, and we'd eliminate the class system that has been put in place and get us closer to a utopian society as opposed to our gradual move away from it.

    Where is Pol Pot when you need him?

    The morality of anti-humanism requires some tough love, but it's well worth it. Just think of all the trees that will grow in the killing fields.
  • How Do You Think You’re Perceived on TPF?
    But really… Are you saying you don’t like Bob Hope??? :brow: — Baden

    I largely blame him for our loss in Vietnam. If he's going to take credit for World War 2, he's going to have to admit to his strategic mistakes in Vietnam. I question the entirety of his strategy. His handling of the draft was a debacle, only exasperating issues of domestic inequality.

    You've bought into the narrative that he's a grandfatherly Uncle Sam offering comfort and safety in a dangerous world. I know him for what he is: a gin infused hollowed out shell of a man who directs bombs into foreign lands like he's playing a video game.

    Fuck Bob Hope.

    Hang on a sec... Maybe I got the wrong guy. I need to do some Googling, but for now, the condemnation stands. Fuck Bob Hope.
  • How Do You Think You’re Perceived on TPF?
    ↪javi2541997
    You are one of a kind and God and the world need you.

    Fuck Bob Hope though.
  • How Do You Think You’re Perceived on TPF?
    I think I’m mostly perceived as an asshole and a punk, — Mikie

    At least you're self-aware.

    jk
  • How Do You Think You’re Perceived on TPF?
    ↪Baden
    Why do you have five glasses of wine and three glasses of water? Slow it down there buddy.
  • Sound great but they are wrong!!!
    When you tell someone their work is below par, that should mean it's good because you want to be under par. Birdies and eagles are good.

    If you sleep like a baby, that should mean you get up every two hours really pissed off.
  • Is this image racist? I talked to someone who thought so.
    Guys, 100% a joke about mocking ebonics as a sign of lack of education and intelligence.

    Not a question. Hang that in my break-room at work, and you have no job tomorrow.

    If you read it differently, you're from far far away.
  • Suggestion: TPF Conference via AVL
    All you need is a Zoom link. It'll take 3 seconds to create.
  • 50 Year Old Man Competing with Teen Girls in Swimming Competition
    I like this thread because it went from asking whether a 50 year old transsexual MtF should swim with young women to whether men dressed as women as a ruse so they could get into young womens' locker room and catch a glimpse of their young nakedness.

    As to the first question, a 50 year old person, born as a man, with all genetic coding consistent with being a male, is at a distinct advantage physically in that sort of competition.

    Policy does not dictate science and science does not dictate policy.

    By comparison, the fact that climate change might cause environmental change that cannot be changed without affecting the economy does not mean we can just deny the science away so that can maintain the status quo. The policy we want cannot change the science we have.

    By the same token, science does not tell us that we can't let the environment change and it does not tell us how we ought to react. That is, the science can be as it is, but we can still decide to maintain the status quo, but we just have to decide that's the policy we wish to advance, taking into consideration all the pros and cons of what we want to acheive.

    Moving back to the transsexual question:

    That we want transsexual MtF women to be physically the same as CIS women doesn't make the science mean that they are. They aren't, so let's stop (just as the climate change deniers need to stop) pretending the science is different from what it is.

    By the same token, science does not dictate policy. That is, just because MtF women are distinct in important ways when it comes to competing physically, science cannot demand policy. That is, if you want to say that MtF women get to compete with CIS women, you can, but just realize the impact of what that policy will be.

    That is, if I'd rather maintain the economy as it is and let the tides rise, then that's my judgment call. If I want to let MtF transsexuals compete against CIS women and let the winners and losers be as they are, then that's my judgment call.

    All of this is to say, admit what your goal is and stop trying to proclaim what science requires us to do. It requires nothing of us, but just informs us so we can decide what we want to do.

    As to the second question, sure, in a world of billions of people there are no doubt a handful of nutjobs that would put on a dress to catch a glimpse of something otherwise off limits to them. But that's too uncommon an exception to build a policy around and is a ridiculous red herring that gets everyone running around.

    My opinion is that MtF women should not compete with CIS women and that's my vote. It's my vote because I want to preserve CIS female sports so that CIS women can continue to win. Allowing in MtF women won't do that. If that doesn't bother you, vote the other way.
  • Thomas Ligotti's Poetic Review of Human Consciousness
    But why is political ideology something to be debated, but Philosophical Pessimism is something you just choose, like a favorite band or some such? Why is Realism or Idealism a debate bit not Philosophical Pessimism? — schopenhauer1

    How do you propose it be done? Is it a moral argument, as in, the greater good comes from being negative in perspective? That would be odd, considering happiness is often posited as the goal of the good.

    Is it an epistemological goal, as in truth is found by being negative?

    Present your thesis. Pessimism is a correct perspective because it does what better than optimism?

    I also don't think we debate political ideology here. We argue current events, choosing our facts and conclusions to fit our narrative. Political debate would argue the nuances of a political theory without the personal commentary. It's rare to see capitalism or Marxism argued from a emotionally neutral perspective. It's why the Trump and Israel threads are dumpster fires.
  • Thomas Ligotti's Poetic Review of Human Consciousness
    Again, why can Philosophical Pessimism be dismissed as temperament based, but any other axiological debates like ethics and politics are fair game? — schopenhauer1

    Pessimism is a choice, and I think, for you, the right one. You are exactly as you should be, right where you're needed.

    That is what optimism sounds like.

    I don't think it's all about disposition. You can be a pessimist or an optimist. That's just how great the world is. Freedom.
  • Suggestion: TPF Conference via AVL
    ↪AmadeusD
    I'd be in favor of it. It's always good to put names with faces.

    If you set it up, try to accommodate US Eastern time so it'll be easiest for me.
  • A Case for Moral Realism
    The issue here is that Hanover (and others) seem to think that using an undefined term poses no problems — Leontiskos

    My position isn't that words have no meaning. My position is that the have no essences. If my position was that words have no meaning, why would I be arguing with words?

    Your criticism here has nothing in particular to do with moral terms, but it has to do with all terms. That is, you're not just saying I can't define good and bad, but I can't define anything, including "define."
  • What is the way to deal with inequalities?
    Just sharing some healthy practices in the hope of benefiting others.
    I don't aim to prove whether it's true or not;
    Chinese medicine is simply an exercise, food, or emotion therapy for me.
    Do we need scientific proof of our mother nature?"     — YiRu Li

    The proper justification for a scientific claim is that the methodology used is consistent with the scientific method. I don't know how more clear to say that.

    But, if you see Chinese medicine as a cultural or religious practice, like I said, I'll stand back and respect your prayer.

    Part of my respect cannot be to suggest that your practices are scientifically valid or that they should be included in a typical doctor's visit, though.
  • A Case for Moral Realism
    as far as I’m concerned those are practical questions.

    I don’t know about any rules that I could apply to anyone else but me     — AmadeusD

    If I push down your hand and see your cards, would you say I've violated a rule that applies to someone other than you, or are we always playing different games, free to do as we will, living in the fray of free expression?
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪baker
    True, but the counter to this is quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur.
  • What is the way to deal with inequalities?
    Maybe give it a try and see for yourself. — YiRu Li

    So instead of relying upon a double blind study with multiple participants, you want me to just give it a try and see if it's true or not?

    Like I said, I have no objection to protecting your cultural rituals and holding them in proper regard (as I, no doubt, have my own), but I'm not going to pretend your medical claims are valid just to be accomodating.
  • A Case for Moral Realism
    suffice to say it’s difficult to know what you’re trying to say other than “I’m convinced rape is objectively bad”

    So idk man. Maybe the reverse is the case - if you’re that convinced, you should be able to convince me. If not, maybe you’re not being honest

    Also, in b4 the Dingi turn up: Yes, i have been rape. That is why I am not in the least bit troubled by having this conversation.     — AmadeusD

    So your position is that you don't know if rape is good or bad because you just don't know what good or bad means? Where you see the words "good" and "bad," you just see so much gibberish?

    Let us suppose you're talking to someone and you wish to impart upon that person the principles that should govern their behavior when conducting any activity. And note the term "any." And should you be unable to find principles that always apply, then change "any" to "most any," and we can deal with those unusual circumstances where those princples need modification or perhaps just clarification.

    Alright, let's choose some random activities: (1) playing poker, (2) posting here on TPF, and (3) going to eat lunch. Should I rape those around me in #1? #2? #3? What about lying to those I encounter, or cheating, stealing, or carving my initials in their head without their consent? Seems all those things are off limits. They appear to be universal rules.

    Play that game in your head and get back with me and let me know what rules you arrive at like I did. Once you start describing those rules to me that you've located, we can put them under the heading "good" and then the blur that obscures that word will begin to focus. And then we can start to look at whether there is a formula or principle that enables us to understand which things are good and which not, and then we can arrive at a moral theory.
  • What is the way to deal with inequalities?
    While I can't say I'm familiar with any scientific research or lack thereof involving chiropractic, and generally rank your general knowledge as on par if not better, the idea, as I was sold by my former chiropractor, that over time adjustments, well, adjust, seems to be plausible. — Outlander

    The history of chiropractic dates back to a man named Palmer who opined that all illness (as in all, from back pain, to sinus infections, to liver disease and so on) was caused by the inability of the life force to find its way down the spinal column due to an improperly aligned spine. He charted out what body parts were affected by misalignments at each level, so perhaps misalignment of the lower lumbar spine might cause you abdominal pain wheras the mid spine might cause you heart disease. The solution was to align your spine, which meant popping your back and supposedly bringing it into alignment, where you could then be cured of your illness.

    Over time, most (but not all) chiropractors abandoned to the idea that their adjustment cured various problems with the organs, but they limited their practice to curing spinal pain, although many still claim that periodic adjustments are necessary for maintaining one's general health. Of course, these "adjustments" don't actually change the alignment of the spine, which is easy enough to observe on radiological studies, which is a good thing, because it you were able to manipulate someone's spine so easily, they'd be paralyzed.

    The best you can say they do is treat muscular pain and their efforts are glorified massages. Some chiropractors have stopped cracking backs as they're known to do because that poses some liability risks in the event they hurt the patient. That has caused most to turn to a small spring device that they pop lightly on the patients spine and they claim that aligns the spine. Those devices are particularly stupid, but it is part of the practice. In fact, more than 50% of chiropractors now use that method.

    https://www.advancedchiropracticgroup.com/services---techniques/activator-technique/activator-technique-faqs-.html#:~:text=The%20Activator%20Technique%20of%20chiropractic,chiropractors%20use%20the%20Activator%20Method.

    To quote John Hopkin's Medicine:

    "Acupuncture points are believed to stimulate the central nervous system. This, in turn, releases chemicals into the muscles, spinal cord, and brain. These biochemical changes may stimulate the body's natural healing abilities and promote physical and emotional well-being."     — Outlander

    That statement does not indicate that accupuncture works. It recites what the belief is, but makes no reference to any study.

    The New England Journal of Medicine reports the results of a double-blind study on the efficacy of accupuncture for osteoarthritic pain, finding

    "Forty patients, randomly assigned to an experimental and a control group, participated in a double-blind study to assess the effectiveness of acupuncture in reducing chronic pain associated with osteoarthritis. The experimental group received treatment at standard acupuncture points, and the control group at placebo points. Analysis before and after treatment showed a significant (P < 0.05) improvement in tenderness and subjective report of pain in both groups as evaluated by two independent observers and in activity by one observer. Comparison of responses to treatment between the two groups showed no significant( > 0.05) difference.

    Thus, both experimental and control groups showed a reduction in pain after the treatments. These results may reflect the natural course of illness, and various attitudinal and social factors. (N Engl J Med 293:375–378, 1975)" https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM197508212930803

    You can do a full review of the literature, but you'll find no supporting evidence for accupuncture for the relief of pain. If you did, then your neighborhood family doctor would be performing it, or at least they should be. If it worked and they didn't do it, then it would build an argument that medical practices are just social voodoos dependent upon cultural norms and not actually empirically based.

    The reason this matters is because healthcare is a mulit-billion dollar industry and all sorts of people want to get their hands on some of this money. That has resulted in the "alternative healthcare" industry to emerge where they build upon a narrative that there are all sorts of simple solutions to problems and they flood the market with non-scientific testimonials to support their claims. This is not to say that true medical providers don't cheat, rob, and steal, but they at least have a valid methodology that works if they choose to use it. Alternative medicine does not have a valid methodology, and for that, it's not a valid enterprise.
  • What is the way to deal with inequalities?
    What about chiropractic? People say that's "not a real science/medicine". Yet people swear by it. — Outlander

    There is the placebo effect, which science does recognize.

    I think chiropractic helps people by rubbing their backs and making it hurt less, but the "science" of it in that it somehow actually changes the skeletal structures or that it corrects malalignments, that's all horseshit and should be discarded.

    I'm not willing to just say all medical treatment is the same and that we should allow all forms to be considered for fear we'll offend or be hypocritical. It's prefectly ok to say accupuncture is nonsense if it fails to show it works based upon scientific testing. And it is nonsense as a treatment for illness. It doesn't work. If it's some sort of pseudo-religious or sacred cultural practice, I have no objection to it, and I'll step back in reverence when its practioners use it, but I'm not going to suggest whatever illness suffered from has been addressed when it's used.

    I think part of the cause in the West currently is the result of an ongoing conflict between science and religion whereby the success of science in material knowledge has been so overwhelming that social, political, and moral considerations, and especially any spiritual or religious concerns have been dismissed as fantasy, and nonsense. — unenlightened

    I do agree that there is a spiritual crisis in our material society, so much so that most don't even know that their depressed state is caused by a lack of spirituality because they never were aware that even existed to be missing. The worst way to fix that is to proselytize, so they must left to be to find their way, which I actually think they will. Where I disagree with you though fairly profoundly is that I have no fear that religion will be over-run and that secular society will snuff it out. I don't believe that because I absolutely am as devout a theist as there might be, which means it's an impossibility that wrongness prevails. And I keep this vague enough because I know you have no desire to hear the tenants of my faith, but I just point out the that crisis you feel is from a lack of your own faith. I'm sure though that you find my optimism absurd, but your response is exactly as it ought to be, as is everything.
  • A Case for Moral Realism
    Does the word "bad" mean something that isn't already covered by words like "cruel", "harmful", "disgusting", "despicable", etc.? — Michael

    All those words are not synonymous.

    We can all think of examples where something is harmful, disgusting, or despicable, but not immoral.
  • A Case for Moral Realism
    But, in a philosophical discussion I'm unsure how to note that rape is bad. I/quote] If you can't say that rape is bad in a philosophical discussion, it would seem you would want to steer clear of philosophical discussion and reside in places where that is unequivocally bad. — AmadeusD
  • A Case for Moral Realism
    ↪AmadeusD
    Is rape bad?

    If a person were raped, you couldn't tell them a bad thing happened to them?

    Why is the word "bad" such a troubling word for you to define and why don't you (or do you) have such problems with other intangible concepts like justice, freedom, love, happiness, or things like that?
  • A Case for Moral Realism
    I'm not quite understanding the question as response to - my question - — AmadeusD

    My response to your question was shorthand. The full response, to be more clear, would be:

    Yes, I do, but if it's not, how do you know that something is good or bad?

    But i don't think I can know. I can just know whether something is comfortable or not. I can't rightly think that would entail it being good or bad. — AmadeusD

    If you equate morality to comfort level, then why can't you say those things you're comfortable with are good or bad? For example, I would assume you think rape is a bad thing, can you not tell me that it is bad? If your answer is that you're uncomfortable with rape (sounds like an example of British understatement), but you're not sure if it's bad, then you'll have to define "bad" so that I know why your discomfort is not evidence of it.
  • A Case for Moral Realism
    Do you think this is roughly the standard for Philosophical discussions of morality? — AmadeusD

    How do you know that something is good or bad?
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Sorry, — NOS4A2

    I accept your apology.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪180 Proof
    There is no soul of America, but a few groups here and there that sort of share the same soul until they figure out how they're different and then they can divide into different groups.

    I do actually think Trump will win.

    Not sure if you're following the prosecution of Trump in Atlanta over the Georgia election. The DA hired her lead prosecutor, not by doing a nationwide search for the best and brightest to take on the man who is vying for the most powerful position in the world, but by rolling over in bed and finding the guy that just fucked her and asking him if he'd be interested in the job. She then pays him over $600,000 (which no ADA makes ever, and is more than she makes) and then they use that money to go on trips.

    Then she goes in front of her church and tells them the scrutiny over this guy is because he's black and not over the two white guys she appointed also, as if this might have more to do with selecting your secret boyfriend for the job and not much to do with race. And she still hasn't admitted or denied the allegation she's fucking her chief prosecutor.

    It's just so disappointing to have these unforced errors and to feed right into the Trump narrative that everyone else is more fucked up than he is. Trump calls the Georgia Secretary of State and asks him to go get him a bunch of votes, and Trump is going to get away with it because the hacks can't keep the train on the rails.

    I don't know where I am anymore on any of this. They all live lives so different from me I can't compute any of this. I wouldn't let my wife work in my law firm and I'm a partner here. Can they not compute that a sexual partner will control the entire work environment and will be entirely unmanagable if allowed authority? And can't you be self-aware enough to know that your belief in the brilliance of your boyfriend might not be an objective evaluation? My rule is that if you call someone your boo boo or punkin, you can't hire them to lead your battle against the potential next leader of the free world.

    It's so fucking stupid. Trump's going to win and she's going to lose whenever she is up for election. Follow that bullshit: A guy will try to steal an election for the highest position in the world and the prosecutor against him is going to pay the highest political price for it.

    Part of me says that the world deserves Trump.
  • A Case for Moral Realism
    Do you have a basis? Or is it more an intuition that there must be some basis, unknown or indescribable? — AmadeusD

    This seems to be the generalized difficulty with moral theorizing. We take a number of examples of events, and we place them in either Column A - Moral or Column B- Immoral. We then try to figure out what principle distinguishes the two. Maybe you think utlitarianism or maybe you think Kantianism best explains why one goes into A and the other B. That theory then becomes helpful in deciding how to resolve an ethical dilemma where you don't know what to do. My guess is that few really do that, however. Most just go back to relying upon whatever instinct there was that caused the person to put events in A or B in the first place.

    This would be similar to creating two columns in any instance. We might take a number of examples of objects and we place them in either Column A - Cups or Column B - Not Cups. We then arrive at a principle to distinguish the two so that when we get an odd shaped thing we can then determine if it's an A or B. Maybe that's what we'd do, or maybe we'd just instinctively just put the new object in a particular column like we did with the initial objects.

    Inherent in this problem is that the gold standard for determining which column an event or object goes is in your sensation and assessment of that object. That means we start with our putting things in columns and then after the fact, we tell ourselves why we did it, when in fact we did not perform that analysis.

    If, for example, I arrive at a theory for why events are moral and then I apply that theory to a specific event X and the theory says X is moral, but I don't agree with it, then I refuse to call it moral and I go back and tinker with my theory so that Xs no longer are computed as moral. That is, I have this ability to know right for wrong. That is what I think we mean by having a conscience. My theory for why things are right and wrong is just a rule of thumb, but ultimately, I can sense the difference between the two.

    As to cups, I'd say the same thing. If I look at my Cups and Not Cups columns and I arrive at a theory that describes what goes in what column, and then I find out the object X is determind to be a cup, yet I think it not to be a cup, I don't just put it in the cup column, but I tinker with my theory so that Xs no longer are considered cups. That is, I have this ability to recognize cups. That is what I think we mean by having the abilty to understand (which results in categorization of things).

    This isn't to say that moral assessment isn't subject to significant reasoning and sorting out the interests of all involved and in being empathetic and compassionate, but offering a meta-explanation for why those considerations should predominate I don't think can be done. Certain fundamental bases (to now directly answer your question) must just be accepted. That is, I can tell you why I judged something wrong, but I can't tell you the basis for my basis, and if you show me that my conclusion is flawed based upon how I should have assessed it, I don't think I'd necessarily reconsider because my basis was post hac.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪180 Proof
    You're just painting the future you want to see in the spirit of tracht gut vet zein gut, but I'm seeing into the soul of America and just reporting what stares back at me.

    Blame the Democrats for running a corpse for President.
Home » Hanover