Just that there's no good proof that he did. Can't say he didn't or isn't. — Maggy

The same could be said of you.

Can harming other humans ever be justified. (Other than in self defence) — Andrew4Handel

If harm includes sending someone to jail in order to keep him from committing other crimes, then yes.

Can you justify causing harm to a child by procreating? — Andrew4Handel

These antinatilism posts continue to pollute this forum.

The OP asks, Q: "What will Mueller discover?"

A: Trump did not collude with the Russians.

I've seen psychiatrists and three different therapists. — Bitter Crank

And you're still crazy as shit, so I guess I'll have to concede the point that psychiatrists and psychologists are useless. Well played sir.

I went to a therapist who just sat there and made me talk. I didn't like the awkward silence, so I kept talking. I'm not sure it accomplished anything, but I didn't want to object that it was bullshit because I have this tendency to do that and impose whatever the hell I want on things. I thought it'd be ironic for me to do to her what I do to others, so I fought the urge.

I eventually quit going, saying I had other shit to do.

What I noticed about myself is that I tended toward such introspection that I failed to actually emote. I recognized that as I rambled on and on self-diagnosing, when I noticed the lonely box of Kleenex on the table, realizing that it must be there for a reason, that some people actually cry on that couch where I was sitting. I thought to myself that was an astute observation I just made about myself as I sat there, further self-diagnosing and self-treating. Sort of like I'm doing now.

Nice chat.

Where psychiatrists really earn their status is in dealing with major mental illness, where life and death issues are at hand. Their waiting room full of merely unhappy, dissatisfied, pissed off, worried sick patients will mostly get better on their own, as they always have, but he gets paid to help them, so... — Bitter Crank

Most people are psychologically healthy enough that they can function with or without any form of therapy. Since there's minimally wrong with them, they invest at most a few hours a month going to their therapist, and sort of like getting a massage from time, it feels good, but you're no better or worse off long term from it. Your back is going to hurt sometimes and it's going to stop hurting sometimes regardless of what you do, but a massage might help you through the worst of times.

I've been to a therapist before and it did offer some insight. Whether it was a life changer, not really, but I wasn't in need of a life changer. I also didn't leave embittered, with the feeling the process was bullshit and a money grab. It had its value and I'm not ready to jettison the whole profession as a scam, or worse yet, a destructive, controlling cancer on our society.

This is likewise nonsensical. One can devise an effective treatment for homosexuality, and be as empirical as an empire about it, but the successful treatment of something that is not an illness is bad medicine at best, and a serious violation of human rights if imposed against an individual's will as in the case of Alan Turing. — unenlightened

But what I said was:

If the bottom line is that psychiatry is offering assistance to those seeking assistance, then psychiatry has the right to some degree of pride in doing what it's doing. — Hanover

This would require that those being assisted are those who want to be assisted. I've not suggested that any branch of medicine impose itself on unwilling patients, and I don't know that anyone was suggesting that the fundamental rules requiring informed consent be changed.

But that isn't all psychiatry does. Alone of the branches of medicine, it frequently and systematically imposes treatment on those not seeking assistance against their expressed will. — unenlightened

There are fairly strict laws regulating the imposition of unwanted treatment, requiring judicial intervention. http://brown.edu/Courses/BI_278/Other/Clerkship/Didactics/Readings/INVOLUNTARY%20TREATMENT.pdf

The state often has an interest in seeing that certain people are treated and not left to their own devices, especially when they pose a risk to themselves or others. Even in those instances, there are strict standards and limitations imposed on the treatment.

You're attempting to define the medical profession by the rare instances of extreme examples where a responsible society can't just stand idly by under some over-reaching theory of self autonomy and allow people to self destruct or destroy others.

What you're referencing has less to do with medical ethics and the proper role of medical professionals in treating patients than it does the proper role of police powers vested in the state and the state's right to promote the public welfare. Such is the purview of law enforcement and the judicial system more than doctors, but to the extent you have an over-zealous doctor trying to impose treatment on an unwilling patient, his power will be checked by the law and judges.

The unfortunate reality is that there are more people in need of treatment sleeping in the street than there are people not in need of treatment forced into hospital beds.

This conversation really isn't one that fits within the purview of philosophy as far as I can tell. Because psychology is a scientific discipline, the value of psychiatric treatment is an empirical question, meaning we can look at the data to determine if the various treatments are effective. That is, if we can show statistically that Xanax offers relief from anxiety, then it simply does, regardless of whether that causes you to ponder "what really is normal" and the moral implications of normalizing normal and other naval gazing activity. It's also seems irrelevant whether there are some bad actors in the pharmaceutical industry or whether the medicalization of conduct you'd rather see characterized as accepted idiosyncrasy is offensive. If the bottom line is that psychiatry is offering assistance to those seeking assistance, then psychiatry has the right to some degree of pride in doing what it's doing.

Have you been reading S's posted, you are beginning to sound like him. — Sir2u

He was created in my image.

@Baden

One of these days I'm going to take you up on your offer and it's going to be really awkward when we try to have a real conversation in person. — Michael

It won't be awkward because I'm so charismatic. I'm like a cult leader, just more godlike.

Bloody marvelous old chap. Next weekend it is then. Who else is going to show up? I might be able to stay for the second round. :grin: :up: — Sir2u

I'm not sure who's coming. I've got a lot of maybes. I'm pretty sure @Baden and @Michael will be here because their mothers are already here and they probably want to see them.

By the way, could you lend me a few dollars for the fare? — Sir2u

Just take a cab. I'll pay the fare when he arrives.

Well, 'my reality' vs 'your reality' would be more of a psychological difference than a metaphysical one. — Baden

If you qualify realities into "mine" and "yours," you're inserting value into the term "real," as in the phrase "real reality" would distinguish, at least in that context, not a subjective reality, but an objective reality, making the term real not superfluous per the OP.

I'd also point out that psychological differences can be metaphysical, especially in the context of idealism because they wouldn't reference just my construction or misconstruction of reality, but they would reference reality itself.

And your examples don't really match up with un's. — Baden

The examples were:

Reality is real enough, you don't need absolute reality.
Meaning is not more meaningful when it is true meaning.
If the truth is not true enough, actual truth is no improvement. — unenlightened

The modifying adjectives employed all related to emphasizing the reality of the object, and the argument, as I took it, was that such modifications were superfluous because the assertion that something is absolute, objective, real, true, or whatever adds nothing.

Because he was not referencing other sorts of modifiers, but that they all related to truth, I see the concern of the OP as there really not being a distinction between the real and the perceived at least to the extent that we talk about the two as if they are the same and there is no reason to declare one more real than the other.

You looked at the OP just as a matter of useless grammar, agreeing that people throw in all sorts of unnecessary modifiers that litter a sentence and provide no additional meaning.

And my point is that those modifiers do provide additional meaning. Their significance is that they point to metaphysical distinctions.

Reality is real enough, you don't need absolute reality. — unenlightened

But we do have to account for what we know to be subjective interpretation that doesn't exist in the original. What I impose on the interpretation of the object or the author's meaning can be said not to exist outside of my reality.

If I can speak of what is actually in the original, then I'm speaking of something objective, or absolute. If I can speak of what I have added to the original, I am distinguishing the objective from the subjective. It does matter that what I see isn't actually there, especially if your vision is clearer than mine.

Only problem with that, is that I live in Canada so I am:
1. Too far away
2. Underage in your country
Otherwise I'd be happy to join you:) — OpinionsMatter

I looked at a map and from what I can tell Canada is only a couple of inches from where I live.

In terms of the underage thing, I'd think you could just put a really good buzz on in Canada and that ought to carry you for a few days while you're down here.

Bring a jug or something to blow in and maybe a saw you can bend to make music because @Baden said he'd bring the banjo strings.

Because you're underage, I'll save the jokes about the various family members I'll have on standby to do to them as backwoods people do.

I come here for much the same reasons as @Baden. One day we should all meet at a pub actually. There's one just down the street from me with literally hundreds of beers. Since it's close to my house, I'll buy the first round.

This is in fact happening. All sorts of tropical pet reptiles that got too big have been let go in peoples back yards where, Florida being sub tropical, they have all done quite well. Ford has a quite fascinating collection of snakes now that they didn't used to have. — Bitter Crank

Florida with its invasive snakes, Georgia with its invasive wild boars, and Minnesota with its invasive Scandinavians.

I think it is suggesting that boars and monkeys met like ships in the night, ..a long time ago, and the offspring were hybrids, that later became human. — wax

But doesn't that ignore the fact that the ability for different species to mate usually occurs only because the two already shared a historical genetic bond, as in the case of donkeys and horses?

I started reading, but it was too long, and I couldn't find the answer to the question I was looking for.

My understanding of hybrids is that they are formed when species X breaks off into two groups as the result of geographical isolation and after considerable time they evolve separately. Following the separation, they are reunited, they breed, and they produce a hybrid. So, the idea would be that you have horses, some get isolated and they turn into donkeys, the two find each other one day and they make mules. This assumes a common ancestor. It holds that species X forms subspecies Y that breeds into XY.

This article seems to suggest that a primitive man fucked a pig that created a pig centaur and that pig centaur is us. Do I have this right? If that's what the author is suggesting, that's different than saying there was primitive man where one went left and one went right and the direction right one became more a primate and the direction left one became more a pig, and the two eventually reunited to form the current day us.

Why not say (since this is wildly speculative anyway) that pigs and man had a common ancestor, with some becoming pigs and others becoming @Baden? That's the current model of evolution as it applies to primates, where we claim a common ancestor, as opposed to our saying we bred with monkeys and today we're just monkey hybrids, right?

I don't get the need to interpose hybridization into this mess, when all we really need to say is that there appears to be a common genetic similarity that likely arose from a common ancestor.

Considering just the emotional reaction of Westbrook alone, isn't it possible that the heckler's speech could incite violence if other disgruntled African-Americans were present which could result in innocent people being injured? Aren't pejoratives of these kind are factors of limitating speech and/or designated for punishment? — Anaxagoras

As noted in the Bradenberg test, the speech must be directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action," which does not seem to be satisfied in a situation where there is an obnoxious heckler. That heckler would need to be advocating or producing violent behavior, not simply being offensive. The case of Hess v. Indiana, 414 U.S. 105 (1973) seems to make that point. That is to say, there is a significant difference in yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater or in encouraging a riot in a public place and in simply being offensive. The former situations are inciting or encouraging immediate violent or chaotic behavior, while the latter are not.

"Fighting words" are punishable (as noted in Hess), although they would need to be directed against a particular person, and I would think there would be a fairly high First Amendment test as to the reasonableness of whether the words used were inciting. That is, if I chant "Make America Great" at a rally for immigrant rights, that would be protected, because someone can't simply claim particular sensitively to words and then claim I provoked him to action. I would think fighting words would things like telling you that I was going to have sex with your mother or the like, not in just holding offensive beliefs. .

Your line about “fire in a movie theater” does not come from the First Amendment, was never binding, and the case it was quoted in was overturned in 1969. — czahar

The current rule is that the government cannot punish inflammatory speech unless that speech is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action." Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

The movie theater language appeared in Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919), stating that "falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" was not protected speech. Justice Holmes said that expressions which in the circumstances were intended to result in a crime, and posed a "clear and present danger" of succeeding, could be punished. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater

I'd say that Bradenburg didn't fully overule Schenk, but that it expanded upon its reasoning.

Wouldn't that be great, though? That's an ideal worth aspiring to. Maybe if I vigorously reproach people all of the time when they don't accord with my formalism, they'll gradually begin to change their annoying ways, and I'll find myself less exasperated with them. Vigorously reproaching them all of the time is probably not the best approach actually, but "nicey-nicey" just isn't me. — S

Formalism, as a strategy (and I don't think it's a strategy with you as much as it is a personality quirk), is designed to jettison arguments and limit discussion. It's somewhat (note the use of the British understatement here) less than a generous approach because it purposefully avoids identifying the merits of the other person's argument by instead offering criticism as to form.

The errors are always significant. How can the debate progress if they don't get a grip on their errors? The errors are what prevents them from making progress. I'm actually helping them in a sense by pointing out their errors, because they then have an opportunity to fix them and strengthen their argument. — S

While your tough love approach is heartwarming, I've heard tale of a different approach, where the strengths of the other person's arguments are pointed out and responded to, as opposed to a focus on the errors. There are so many ways to skin a horse aren't there?

As an aside, I offer you these (actual) words of inspiration from Psalms 137:9 "Blessed is he who seizes your infants and dashes them against the rocks."

And when we look back in 20 or 30 years to this generation and to this time, will people claim we were the Trump generation that stood for whatever it is that Trump stood for? Or, do you suspect that many who were blessed enough to live through these magical years might stand up and say they had nothing to do with Trump? That is simply to say that while there might be some general zeitgeist pundits wish to attribute to a given era, many, if not most, don't actually subscribe to it. Most spend their times tending to themselves, their jobs, and their families. Most baby boomers are a whole lot like most Millennials, which are just regular folks going about their days.

Most of the WWII generation did not save the world from Nazism, most baby boomers did not protest racism, and most Gen Xers did not fight to save the planet. So, to the OP who poses the question of whether the baby boomers sucked, sure they did. They sat around and got high, screwed around like bunny rabbits, tuned in and dropped out, and made us forget what made us great. They also passed civil rights legislation that gave African American full rights as Americans. There is plenty of good and bad to be said of each generation. I, for example, am a stellar example of excellence in an age of mediocrity.

Injustice and foolishness reign eternal and your itemization of them, some of which I agree with and others not, I hope does not mean to suggest there were some good old days where all was right, just, and true. If so, when was this golden age?

I'll offer you an observation. You seem to require a formalism that others are not nearly as married to and it's a constant source of exasperation for you. It exhibits itself in your demands for proper grammar and spelling down to a wish that everyone be educated in every logical fallacy so that discussion can proceed in a certain orderly and predictable way. I'd submit that a good part of philosophical debate consists of making the many errors you point out and in debating the significance of those errors to the overall discussion, as opposed to making them the focus of the debate.

I'd also say that definitions are not brittle, so it's understandable that some will assume differing descriptions of horses and cats than others. Demanding an absolute meaning to the terms is not the starting point, but likely the ending point after the debate is over and such distinctions are made. To the extent you claim some call horses cats, I think that is obvious hyperbole, but usually the equivocation of terms is more subtle and obscured and has to be brought to light.

How do we know that we're using terms consistently in this thread, and that while you're talking about inconsistent term usage, I'm hearing tales of cats.

I guess my question is what is the question we're to be answering in this thread?
— Hanover

Yes. you have no idea what I am talking about, as I have already pointed out to you and yet you feel entitled to litter the thread with criticisms and cod psychoanalysis on the basis of your incomprehension, and repeating them when they have been explicitly denied. — unenlightened

What is so hard to understand? — unenlightened

What is the question within the OP that you wish answered?

But everyone else did. — unenlightened

Unless you provided the factual basis elsewhere, I don't know how they could have. Their responses certainly didn't reference it, nor did they offer condolences, which would have been appropriate given what you've now said.

But, to the extent I missed the factual basis you've since provided, please provide a cite to where it was clarified to me but missed. Otherwise, the best you can say is that I failed to decipher your poetry, which is true.

What is the point that it seems to be missing ?
What do you mean by 'enlightenment' ?
What is the 'divine' ? What is the difference between the 'actual' divine as opposed to...what...the joy that can be found by ordinary mortals ? Even as they cope with life in general.
What is wrong with having a 'sense of closeness and unity' - even if such manifested itself...and why wouldn't you feel included...or is it that you reject it. For your own personal reasons... — Amity

Fair questions.

The OP was poetic, and obviously subject to interpretation. As we are to learn, it references deep loss suffered by the author. Had it specifically referenced such loss, the only appropriate response would be to express condolences, but it wasn't. Based upon that, I'm not even sure what we ought be talking about here, but this is what I brought to the table, as it were.

I simply see the divine in God. That's where I see it. Sure, I see it in all the objects of creation, but I don't see God as creation. The closeness and unity you reference is a beautiful thing I admit, but it's just another aspect of God, and not God. As I've noted, I don't know where to take this because I don't see it as philosophy or even philosophy or religion, but as a personal expression of faith. You have every right to tell me it makes no sense and it's just my way of interpreting meaning and the world.

I guess my question is what is the question we're to be answering in this thread?

That is mockery. Such disrespect is uncalled for and objectionable. I am talking about the death of my mother, my sister, my first wife, as my personal experience of bereavement, and you liken it some sentimental trash of your own imagining. You have no idea, absolutely none. — unenlightened

Yeah, well I had no way of knowing you were talking about such profound loss, so I couldn't have been mocking you unless I actually knew that. So you have no idea, absolutely none, of what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about sentimental trash. I'm talking about the divine, but you're not listening.

As to my initial assessment that you are depressed, I find it hard to relent because nothing you've said suggests otherwise. I can only said that your thoughts are depressing and reference coping, but whatever. It's not clear that the OP had much point anyway. It certainly didn't ask any question that I can decipher. The best I can decipher is that we're to validate your feelings and tell you the beauty of your prose, but if we don't, we're being disrespectful.

You're still not listening. — unenlightened

You can only tell me that my words don't accurately reflect what you're feeling, but not that I'm not listening because you don't know what I'm actually doing. It's sort of like if someone says things that sound depressing, but then they tell me they're not depressed, then I have to believe they're not depressed and not impose my interpretations on them.

Anyway, this whole thread is getting touchy feely like everyone is going to start hugging each other and having this feeling of closeness and unity. I mean, everyone but me because I don't listen. Either that or I refuse to listen because it seems so missing the point. My enlightenment is just different I suppose. I see the divine in the actual divine I guess as opposed to a kitty cat jumping on a child's lap, or whatever.

You're not listening to me telling you you're not listening. Listen to me telling you I'm not depressed, not coping, but joyful, and stop telling me what what I say must mean I feel. — unenlightened

Fine. You're jubilant.

Very well. I just see this discussion as trying to convince one's self to be joyful despite it all. I find joy because of it all.

Actually I am.

Here's what I heard:

I'm looking at the greyness of slate and cloud and gull, I'm looking at the aggression at every moment of nature, and the poverty and ugliness of the manmade rooftop desert, and making the best of it — unenlightened

You describe coping, not joy.

Thanks for bringing some thoughtful joy... — Amity

That was joy? I shudder to think what pain is. The best that was was a method for enduring pain.

Real joy derives from feeling a sense of purpose beyond the sounds of the tea kettle and the fluttering of the birds outside.

You sound depressed and you unfortunately use your advanced ability to reason to justify it, even to the more unfortunate level of rejecting the optimistic as unreasonable.

I put it here in philosophy of religion, because it is faith beyond reason and beyond the frivolity of mere fact. 'Take, eat, this is my flesh.' Will you measure these truths with a human device? What value has that? Eat, or eat not; there is nothing to argue about. — unenlightened

What are you asking?

That's a flippant and facile way to dismiss a prediction. Of course you must be familiar with the story of the boy who cried "wolf". No doubt superficial thinkers will dismiss any dire prediction with the same blithe disregard as the people in that story dismissed the boy's cry for help. — Janus

I predict the world will be around in 40 years, and I chastise you twice the amount you chastised me for flippantly rejecting a prediction.

I don't know the exact date the rotten tree leaning over my house will fall. But that doesn't mean I should ignore it. I don't understand this weird smugness about other people not guessing correctly. — bert1

Because you're not talking about a rotten limb hanging over your fence that is obviously going to fall fairly soon and that is going to predictably damage a few slats from your fence.

You're speculating about the end of the world, which has been something that has been going on since the beginning of the world. Call me smug, but you seem to also be calling me blissfully ignorant. What value is there is my fretting with you about something you declare inevitable, regardless of what we do about it?

My prediction is that you will spend your life worrying about something that will have minimal impact in your life. You're going to be fine, but if you're not, it won't be because the climate failed you. It will be because of war, poor government policy, heart disease, or a drunk driver. Think of all the time you might spend worrying about the floods that are coming only to be hit by a freight train and not being able to see the end of the world you were predicting.

It's personality. — Bitter Crank

And religiosity, which is probably a personality trait as well.