The following conversation has been moved from: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3516/nietzsches-thus-spoke-zarathustra

Since Lincoln's decision to emancipate the slaves and provide citizenship for every black man was directly at odds with conventional wisdom, and in line with a tiny minority that was considered to be lunatic fringe, I'd love to know how he made that decision. All we can do is speculate. — frank

At the time of the Civil War, Europe had long abandoned slavery and found it morally unacceptable. Lincoln's "emancipation" of the slaves was a political gesture, freeing only those slaves under the jurisdiction of the states in rebellion. If you look at the document, you will see that all the slaves within the northern states or in territories under control of the North were to remain slaves. The reason for that is that Lincoln lacked the power to decree anything over states not in rebellion as such would require an act of Congress (Lincoln submitted he had power under the Wars Power Clause to decree the property of the rebel states contraband (i.e. their slaves) and then to free them). The purpose of the Emancipation Proclamation was to end any hopes that the Confederacy would be permitted to negotiate peace with the help of Great Britain or France, the two world powers that would never negotiate with a state that promoted slavery. Prior to the EP, Lincoln was careful not to portray the war as one over slavery. The EP changed that and formally made the war one over slavery and it was done specifically to remove Great Britain's and France's involvement in the war.

The point of this is that the it was not a tiny minority that wanted to end slavery. It was the entire world minus the South and some small pockets among border states. Slavery did not end with the EP. It was the 13th Amendment that ended slavery, and that required a supermajority (not a tiny lunatic minority) of the states for passage.

The end of slavery did not end governmental institutionalized racism. That took almost 100 more years to happen. It was not envisioned at that moment in time that blacks would be treated in society just like white people. It was only envisioned that slavery would end.

Although not PC, I think that there was some beauty contained within the horror of Nazi ideology. This 'beauty' a love of social order, a rejection of religious power in favor of science pragmatism and logic, the power of the individual, before a subservience to creed, the subjugation of capitalism or the market to the service of the socialist state,. All of these ideals would to a greater or lesser degree have appealed to Nietzsche.
— Marcus de Brun

The problem with the Nazis is that central to their creed was that they held themselves the highest form of the human race, justifying eugenics, genocide, and any form of racism they chose. It wasn't an academic philosophy, but a political movement, and it resulted in the deaths of 10s of millions of people. It was as morally bankrupt of a "philosophy" as there ever was, and it is often rightfully used an example of evil. If one were looking for a more evil and failed position, it would be difficult.

The power and appeal of Nazi ideology in a political state-generating sense is that upon the basis of race it is inclusive of all members of a pure racial and physical cohort. Therefore it has mass appeal and contains within it the implication that members of said cohort are superior upon the basis of their race.

Nietzsche considered the individual 'thinking -man' the philosopher, as the superior being. For Nietzsche the 'quality' or 'purity' of the thinking-man's thought, is generally correlative to the degree that it differs from that of the collective, and thereby it contains an inherent rejection of almost all pre-existing and presently existing social orders. — Marcus de Brun

The problem with this post and all your posts in this thread is that it reeks of Nazi sympathizing, elevating Hitler to the role of an important philosopher and comparing Mein Kampf to Thus spoke Zarathustra, as if those two books deserve to sit on the same book shelf. The simple distinction between Hitler and Nietzsche is that Nietzsche related superiority to the content of one's character whereas Hitler based it on race, making Hitler a murdering racist and Nietzsche an important philosopher. Your attempt to intellectualize this simple distinction is nothing more than obfuscation, and it's for that reason I think my accusation that you are Nazi-sympathizing is unfortunately accurate (despite your token references to the horror of the movement).

It is like if I should tell you that the Klan had many good ideas if we could just distill away their racism and we could better appreciate their desire to protect the simple values of the South. That is, if we look closely, we'd realize that the Grand Imperial Wizard of the KKK is no different than Martin Luther King, Jr. in that both just want a productive peaceful society. MLK wants to achieve it though equality of all races whereas the KKK wants to achieve it through intimidation, oppressive laws, and nooses, but, at the end of the day, they are one in the same.

I do believe, though, in some degree of social Darwinism, and I am comforted by the fact that Nazism and the KKK have been relegated to the dustbin of failed and entirely idiotic movements, with only a few misfits still adhering to those viewpoints, many of whom fill our prisons.

I'm impressed, naturally, that you read about Andrew Young slamming Mondale aides and didn't call out of work to nurse your rage. But what's the point of that anecdote? Do you think its a scenario roughly equivalent to one tiff mentioned - only you reacted better? If not, then what's your point? — csalisbury

My point was (1) that I don't stand in the shoes of an African American so I won't begin to tell him how he ought to react, and (2) I've not found being outraged, offended, and insulted particularly useful in responding to morons, but, like you said, it's often difficult to control one's reactions to attacks. I also believe that some feign outrage as an effective tactic against outrageous conduct and it's just sort of an outrage game people play. Is that what happened in Tiff's example? I really don't know.

It's remotely possible that the guy is just so folksy that the term "cotton pickin" is just an innocuous way of saying "dang" or "dadgum" to him. More likely he was waiting to say it to create some controversy.

Do I think it's something to get outraged over? I won't tell an African American how he ought react. I do remember though when the good Jesse Jackson called NYC Hymie Town and when Andrew Young called Mondale's aides smart ass white boys. I was insulted neither time. It just lets me know their real opinions, as if I didn't already know.

Well, if they are at the shelter, then moving them into a slightly more comfortable spot isn't what's going to save their life.

And you know this is a false equivalence, and it's fucking hypocritical. — Akanthinos

The discussion was broad enough that it can be equivalent as you make it. In the context of Mexican immigration, it is equivalent. They are not refugees escaping torture or death in their homeland, but are looking for a more comfortable spot here in the US. That would make the analogy apt.

And on the other side of this, the homeless you've decided to describe are those that are slightly uncomfortable and will only receive something slightly better if housed with you. There are, though, homeless who are in desperate need of help that could be provided by you and that could save their life, yet you don't do it.

My point here isn't that you're a hypocrite for demanding that others offer aid to suffering immigrants while you allow similarly situated homeless people to suffer. Whether you're a hypocrite is irrelevant. What I challenge is the standard you imposed, which is that you claim it is highly immoral (i.e. you would be a "monster" for doing this) not to help all those in need who you could help. I don't accept that as a standard of morality because it requires an extreme altruism that is superhuman, not, as you suggest that those failing that degree of altruism are subhuman. I'm saying that it is moral to have more than an equal share of wealth and it is not required that you divide your fortunes, however humble, equally to those in need.

This isn't to say that a certain degree of charity isn't morally required, and I'd say most consider giving of one's self a requirement of being a good person, but there are limitations in what is expected of us. One standard often used among the religious in Western society is that of tithing, where 10% of one's wealth is offered as charity. That number is arbitrary to be sure, and I don't suggest it is the specific number that must be adhered to, but it does make the point that the how much question has been a point of issue for thousands of years. That is, we can be moral (and not be monsters) by limiting a distribution of our community resources by not opening up our borders to all comers, but by offering our charity in a limited, but still generous way.

Also, aren't you Jewish? Don't you have a very vivid historical reason not to piss on the 1951 Refugee Act and the status of asylum seeker? Yeah... :worry: — Akanthinos

This is an ad hom. If it is indeed hypocritical for me to reject immigrants today when my ancestors were immigrants (and that is a debatable hypothesis), then the best you could say is that I'm a hypocrite. Not wrong, just a hypocrite. This is just to point out that you're no longer debating, but just trying to be insulting.

At any rate, this is just a red herring by you, considering the immigration debate in the US is not over the refugee population of immigrants. The typical US immigrant is Mexican or Chinese and very few US immigrants are truly fleeing their nation of origin for fear of torture or death. If the US closed its borders to all but those who qualified under the refugee convention (which the US didn't enter into until 1967 by the way), immigration would be effectively shut down. If your position is that immigration be limited to only those who qualify as refugees, then your approach is indeed very conservative, and not in opposition to walls, increased border patrols, and other measures to contain the non-refugee immigration attempts.

Was the universe created by purpose or by chance?

The question has two possible outcomes so we should initially assign a 50% probability to each outcome. — Devans99

Well, the universe was either created by a rabbit or it wasn't, so 50% chance rabbit, 50% not rabbit. I get you don't think it was a rabbit, but please don't ridicule my belief in a rabbit diety because my chances of being right are equal to yours.

Start by examining the universes origins. The Big Bang. A huge explosion in space of a least 10^53 kg of matter that created the universe. Was this by chance or the work of a creator? I’ll conservatively assign a 50% probability to each outcome. Combining this probability with the initial staring probability:

50% + 50% x 50% = 75% chance of creator — Devans99

The problem with this complex math equation you've devised is that the chance of it being random chance is also 75%. We would have to add the 25% chance of the Big Bang being correct to the initial 50% as well. Both your possibilities are going to approach 100% the more you add to this, making the likelihood of either equally likely.

And yet you don't go down to the homeless shelter and bring as many home as will fit. Fucking monster.

Human beings of equal moral value should be free to move about the world to maximize
The value of their lives, as they define it. This freedom should only be limited by the inherent
conflicts of similar freedoms in others. The nature of a particular political border may or may
not be a moral entity to the extent it is justly or unjustly resolving the issues of just conflicts of inherent human freedoms from the equivalent human beings it separates. — Rank Amateur

Should someone be permitted to move into my house and sleep in my bed? As one of God's children of equal worth, why should my bed be reserved for me and they be required to sleep somewhere less comfortable? Should they then sleep in my bed, what right do I have then to kick them out and sleep there because I now am being deprived? It seems we have to establish somewhere some set of rules of who gets what, which means we need to start drawing boundaries around things and rules that govern who can cross those boundaries.

Now take it a step further. If you concede that I have the right to the confines of my home and my neighbors theirs, then surely we are free to decide how to share the space between our lands that might be jointly owned. Maybe we will decide to build a park located between ten of our homes that will be shared equally among us and we might arrive at a democratic method for how our common park will be maintained. Does an outsider now have the right to invade our common space but not our home?

What we can get closer to is agreement, not meaning. — Banno

But unlike a Platonic ideal, meaning exists as a real qualitative state, known by the person holding it. Agreement is therefore unilateral, where the holder of the idea assents to the reiteration of the meaning by the other person. Meaning is therefore primary and critical, existing prior to agreement (i.e. unilateral assent) and it forms the very basis of the agreement.

This understanding makes the qualitative state worthy of discussion (metaphysics) as does it make pre-lingual meaning relevant.

How does this affect your Wittgensteinian approach if accepted as true?

The "slave" aspect is failing to recognise value is about ourselves, instead thinking it is granted by something else, some otherworldly force-- quite literally "I am nothing. You (refering to the otherwordly force) have all power and definition of me." — TheWillowOfDarkness

The "otherworldly" you reference is a reference to the objective. That is, to say I have value means I do regardless of what anyone else says or agrees to.

When you tell me you have value, but you deny value is rooted in something other than your own assessment of value, then would you not lack value if you decided you did? If not, then where is this value that cannot be destroyed and is eternal? Wherever it is and whatever it is sounds godly.

When seeking meaning it's wise to look to use. — frank

Sure, but who disagrees with this? Is all we're saying now is that meaning isn't use, but use is just one thing to consider when trying to figure out what someone means?

I don't follow. "Soul" under the langauge game model would be sensical. It would mean that non-existent entity to which Christians believe a person's essence resides. That their internal thought varies from their public use (I.e. they believe it existent) would mean that meaning really isn't use only if you're willing to delve into the phenomenal state of Christians, something I thought you wouldn't do.

So even though as Hanover pointed out we may never get it right, we might get close enough to make no difference. — Banno

Then meaning is not use. Meaning is your internal idea approximated in the picture you paint through utterances, gestures, or an actual picture. Some are better at painting pictures and are easily and accurately understood and some are better at interpreting and understanding what is being conveyed, but others not.

Pragmatically, as you point out, it probably overall doesn't matter terribly. We do, in the end, generally communicate well. But to your linguistic theory that hinges on the idea that the use of the word is its public meaning, does not this concession do much violence? Aren't we now admitting that "rock" means my phenomenal impression of rocks, and my public use of that term is not its meaning, but just a close approximation?

I would kill a Hanover for a piece of that right now. — Baden

By "kill" do you mean spending an amazing weekend in Milan buying shoes and dancing into the wee hours of the morning or do you mean ending my life. Your post is a little unclear.

Brie is best frozen so it's not all runny. As it starts to thaw, refreeze it. That's how I enjoy it most. I give my dogs rawhide and as they chew on their treats, I gnaw on my brie block and we sort of bond. Been doing that for years.

For a democracy to function, the people must be free to choose, and those who don't know the truth can't choose freely. — TogetherTurtle

Sure, let's set up a Truth Committee and tell them what to believe. I want to chair that committee.

We are all friends here. We are all men of logic here, and if you aren't why are you here? If we ever wish to see the full potential of the human race, our future among the stars, curing disease, becoming even more than we could ever imagine, we have to work together and build a platform upon which our minds can be free. I beg of you, set aside your differences and use the brilliance of man to build us a brighter future. — TogetherTurtle

Yes, let's all join hands in unison and sing songs and the world will be hunky dory. Despite all the partisanship, diseases are still being cured. Somehow it's all working, despite our not coming to terms on everything.

The solution to liars is to call them out as liars. They get to lie. I get to call them liars. That's what free speech is. It's a bunch of people screaming at each other. Like here.

"Salty". And kind of "non-responsive". The only good bit was the joke at the end.

OK though, what happened to rising living standards? There's more wealth. Where did it go and why? You tell me. — Baden

It was responsive, maybe salty. I have a headache, so it's likely. Your point being that too much free speech allows the liars to run rampant and improperly influence. My point being that you're no better or worse at ferretting out the liars than anyone else, so you and your ilk (again, I have a headache) needn't be placed in a position to protect those less capable than you. This is an argument for unrestrained free speech being a good thing.

Where did the extra wealth go? Everywhere. There are greater disparities now than maybe 100 years ago, but greater wealth overall. Few are so broke they don't can't afford computers to bitch about how broke they are.

. But, as we know that with modern marketing methods money can buy opinion and convince people to vote against their own interests, putting more money into the pockets of those who buy the opinions that suit them along with support for the politicians who propagate them creates a self-stroking cycle of concentrating power in fewer and fewer hands, as has been happening, particularly in the US and particularly since the 80s when brand power, both commercial and political, began to really take off. — Baden

This is elitist nonsense offered as a justification for silencing those you disagree with. I'd submit that you are no more or less immune from being swayed to vote against your own interest than are the stupid people who you've left nameless. The moron redneck who votes Republican no more votes against his interest when he wants to limit government aid that might assist him than does the genius intellectual vote against his interest when he votes for government assistance programs he'll never use. Both are voting ideologically, supporting their views of self-sufficiency and their views on the legitimate role of government. It wasn't like Rush Limbaugh created his followers. He's just one of the best at preaching to his choir.

But, anyway, I think the left should be forced to shut up. All they do is create liberal sheep. If only they were taught what we all know is right and just we wouldn't have this partisanship.

Didn't read the whole history lesson, I'll admit. My position is that the most notorious anti-democratic efforts in the US occurred prior to and at the time of Civil War and in the many years that followed in an effort to continue slavery and to enforce Jim Crow laws. In particular, the South's efforts to secede were motivated by not wanting to have their minority vote watered down by the society at large. There were also many laws limiting and manipulating voting to assure certain minority positions remained enforced after the war.

I'd say the most significant anti-democratic laws currently in existence have nothing to do with corporations but are part of the rule making authority delegated to full time government agencies, where bureaucrats pass rules in committees and enforce them on the public.

There is nothing undemocratic about having interested parties sway voters. That is what democracy is. Interfering with a person's right to sway voters is particularly undemocratic.

1) A commitment (if not a timetable, which at this stage would have been an unrealistic demand) to CVI (Complete, Verifiable, and Irreversible) denuclearisation from North Korea was expected to be and should have been a red line demand from the US coming into the summit. — Baden

That's the grand prize, not a prerequisite to begin the talks. If Trump demanded denuclearization just to sit down at the table, then why even go to the table, considering that's all he wanted to begin with.

2) There was no need to make a concession on military exercises as it wasn't in the draft statement, wasn't (apparently) expected by the South Koreans and was (apparently) granted by Trump on a whim (First rule of negotiation: Never give anything away for free). — Baden

He put that on the table, but it hardly means the exercises won't occur if there's not compliance by the North Koreans. Your position that it was given on a whim is speculation based upon your being convinced Trump is reckless and impulsive. I'm not suggesting he's an infallible genius, but I think you greatly underestimate him. A reckless and impulsive person doesn't win the presidency. Actually, if you think he did just that, you're the one attributing to him an almost mystical intuitive sixth sense of knowing instinctively what to do. My point is that I think he plans a whole lot more than you think.

3) The excessive praise of Kim was unnecessary and will only embolden autocratic tyrants around the world (not to mention Kim himself). — Baden

If the point of the summit was to denounce Kim as evil personified in the fashion of typical American diplomacy, then it was a failure. Trump is clearly not approaching this from a moralistic perspective where he feels the need to declare that American ideals will be enforced the world over. He's a pragmatist who wants to land a deal that denuclearizes North Korea and he's doing that the way he knows that works, through promises of material gain. And really, the promises of a North Korean Hilton on the unspoiled beaches might be more enticing than you realize.

Any country coming into any negotiation, even a preliminary one, must have goals with regard to the outcome and can only be judged in terms of their success on the basis of those goals. I'm sure you'd agree with that. So unless the goal of the US was to get nothing here and give several things away, they failed. Simple as that. That doesn't mean the whole thing will be a failure. It's not over yet, obviously. — Baden

Nothing has been given away. Everything said can be rescinded. We're on the first few feet of the marathon.

It's more of a missed opportunity than an active harm. If it works out, all's well, but right now, as things stand, what Trump got (i.e. nothing), with all his bluster about being a great deal maker is an embarrassment. — Baden

An fairly objective analysis of the summit: https://www.jpost.com/International/Analysis-US-North-Korea-Summit-decoded-559766

My analysis is this: Kim and Trump both got promises. They promised to denuclearize. We promised to let them be. The details are unclear on the how and when. There's a "whenever, whatever, however" feel to the whole thing.

Will we really pull our troups from they region, forever cease war games, end all sanctions? Will they really do as they say? With the vague promises in place, who knows what will happen. I don't read this agreement as imposing any obligations, but it just being a general understanding. It just seems like from what I see is that the world is the same today as yesterday except for two nations having discussed issues they previously didn't. I don't see a fiasco, a blown opportunity, or an embarrassment, just step 1 of 1000 more that will likely derail somewhere

The suggestion that Trump is using the summit to distract from his environmental stance assumes his supporters don't support his environmental stance and that's not a correct assumption.

Where's the harm in this agreement. If N. Korea builds up its nuclear arsenal and tests rockets, we can go back to sanctions and worrying, which is all we did before. And what do sanctions do other than starve the average citizen, which is what Jong-un liked doing anyway? Worst case, we go back to the worst case scenario we already were in.

The serious domestic problem we have is that the parties are actually short sighted enough to root for the other's failure, as if we're not all ultimately aligned.

I don't know (and don't much care) what effect it will have on the Democrats though I doubt that alone would cost them an election. Anyway, you agree with my analysis or not? — Baden

I can't speak to your concerns, but there is a tremendous amount of political clout riding on this. If Trump denuclearizes North Korea, Trump moves from just being plain crazy to being crazy like a fox, something that will be crushing to the left. Considering the President is arguably the most powerful man in the world, that matters, even if it's off your radar. It can decide who gets the reigns to the world next election.

Regarding the final outcome of this deal, it's Day 1 in a very fluid world, so it's a bit early to say anything about it. Is the world a worse or more dangerous place than it was last week? No, I don't think so, but I do think there's is some hope for a better tomorrow at least to the extent the issue is being addressed. The absurdity I see is that the left is arguing against giving peace a chance, calling the right naïve negotiators, and claiming righteous indignation at negotiating with the forces of evil. It's all so very partisan. I won't pretend to have any objectivity left, largely because I have so little trust in either side, but much less so in the left.

Anyway, it may work out. Who knows. But this is not a good start. The US is in a strategically far weaker position now (with China, for example, now calling for a lifting of sanctions) than it was before the summit. That's undeniable. — Baden

We are just a few hours into this agreement, whatever it ultimately entails, and the greatest danger to the Democrats is that it effectively eliminates the nuclear threat currently posed by North Korea. That a brash blow hard was able to eliminate arguably the world's greatest threat through a few hours of conversation will make the liberal's world view crumble, which is one that posits that Trump, and all like him, are incapable of real success and positive change. It will also cost the Democrats the election next term. That is undeniable.

Here's my candid view, and it's what makes this psychological talk very uncomfortable for me. This is the internet, where there are people from backgrounds extremely unfamiliar to many of us, where we meet people far outside our social groups who we have very little understanding or appreciation for. People share with us, including you, that they have many serious psychological issues, many of which doubtfully are addressable by talk therapy, but are matters where medication is required. Where talk therapy might be beneficial, none of us I believe are qualified to give it, and if any of us were, I really doubt we'd be as reckless to offer it through public postings through the tidbits we gather in these posts.

I also believe that postings in this forum can be a manifestation of the psychological condition at play, meaning that responding and even offering validation for someone's feelings could be an enablement of the condition, making us a part of whatever is at play.

What I am saying is that I have taken it upon myself to be difficult to anyone who attempts to use this forum as a psychological sounding board when the matter goes beyond mundane questions like "how do you think I should I ask Betty Sue out" or other innocuous sorts of quandaries. I don't say this as a mod, but as someone who just thinks the sort of talk in this post are at best a waste of time, and at worst part of an unhealthy episode.

That I think that my comments here might be harmful to your psychological state, whatever it may be, (and I sort of do) is even the more reason why we shouldn't tread in these waters at all.

A very strange way to perceive issues, don't you think? Maybe you don't care about all this babble; but, seemingly others do. If it's none of your business then, why bother at all? — Posty McPostface

Not strange, just being honest. It's not my business. In order to really answer your question about what you ought to do next would require a true understanding of your disability, which would require far more information than I'm actually entitled to or able to evaluate remotely and as an amateur, regardless of how well intentioned.

If someone posted that they're disabled due to a digestive disorder, I'd just take it at face value. How would I know how debilitating it is, and who would I be to tell them to push themselves farther than they currently are? My best advice would be to get real advice. Your situation is complicated.

On the other hand, if someone posted some run of the mill problem that was fairly self-contained and just of momentary importance, I'd hazard a response, but telling you to ask your doctor for direction seems the real response to all you're saying because your problems are not the run of the mill I'm referencing.

I've sort of come to terms with everything in my life, I don't struggle anymore. — Posty McPostface

Your trepidation over your stated satisfaction belies your claim to satisfaction. That's not psychoanalysis. That's just logic.

If you're looking for someone to condemn your shiftlessness, you won't find it here, mostly because none of really know your capabilities and it's really none of our business.

I do echo Lone Wolf's sentiments though.

that's a definition, which I disagreed with above. Stating it's nonsense isn't an argument. If I take 5 years longer to become better at chess than you, people will think I'm more intelligent than you irrespective of the speed at which you initially developed. An IQ test tests results not learning ability any way so I'm not even certain you base this on. The ability to learn is a type of intelligence but learning languages is totally different than learning football and cannot be caught in a single measurement. — Benkei

But I'd assume there are ways to test long term learning acquisition skills. While it might not be testable by administering a single 1 hour exam, there would be some way to conduct a long term study, perhaps by charting progress in educational settings. And there's not going to be any way to stop people from using those results to support various ethnic based theories, and those conclusions will of course be subject to the same objections that people make when referencing IQ tests, which is that there are too many uncontrolled environmental variables to make any genetic based conclusions.

Sperm does not contain the human genome, therefore it is not human life. Life begins at conception.

That part is academic. — Kamikaze Butter

But you can have a dead zygote, so containing the human genome must not be the critical criterion for life.

You also can get an egg to subdivide without fertilization, and perhaps technology will allow cloning one day. Will all eggs be potential life when that day occurs and therefore be protected as all human beings should?

America was founded in rebellion upon the premise that government stood in the way of liberty. A Constitution was created that limited the power of government due to distrust of government. The 2nd Amendment does not stand alone for that proposition, but all the enumerated rights, from the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to free speech, and the right not to have soldiers stationed in your home all are checks on governmental power.

It is not a new thing, but it is the essence of Americanism, and like all things traditionally American, it is more embraced by Republicans than Democrats, who for some reason are enamored by the European ideology America very intentionally stood in opposition to.

She has a license to off with your head. — Michael

I've seen her. I could beat her ass. It wouldn't be close as long as I could keep her from setting me up with her devastating flying elbow.

The Queen is immune from prosecution (and arrest). — Michael

So she's 001?

A person is a philosophical construct.

Barring severe mutation or inter species breeding, we know the zygote is human life. We talk of “human rights” not “person rights.”

Life obviously is not a human right. — Kamikaze Butter

Rights is a philosophical construct.

The only 100% method of contraception is abstinence. Therefore, any casual sex risks the possibility of unplanned pregnancy. Under current gynocentric laws in America, women have complete authority on what to do with the baby growing inside them. They can even legally kill the baby. Let's assume that abortion is morally equivalent to murder — Ronin3000

You've not defined "casual" sex, but I'm assuming you define it as sex for some purpose other the procreation, which would include the vast sort of sex that occurs within a marriage. I cannot count the number of times I had sex when married, but I can count the number of kids I have (two), which means that mostly I wasn't having sex to have kids. Since abortion can just as legally occur within a marriage as without, I'm assuming that sex should occur just a few times in a married person's life, else the possibility of abortion/murder.

Of course we could say that casual sex is okey dokey as long as the couple is committed to not aborting the whoopsie daisy, but that would cure the problem for both married and unmarried couples, and that would eliminate the non-problem you've attempted to create.

There are also a class of people who can't get pregnant, either as the result of surgery, genetics, or age. By their mid 40s, it's next to impossible for a woman to get pregnant without a donor egg being artificially inseminated and implanted in her uterus and it's entirely impossible for a post-menopausal woman to get pregnant, so I'm assuming that lucky class of women get to fuck like bunny rabbits. Maybe it's their reward for getting old, giving all those young nubile sexually frustrated women something to look forward to as they age.

And then there's of course homosexual sex, which it appears you are an overwhelming fan of. I am quite certain that cannot result in a bouncing bundle of joy, so we therefore need not worry about the resultant child being slaughtered. I think we'd both agree, though, that our homosexual friends shouldn't be the only ones who get to have all the fun, so we heteros should simply adopt their oral and anal solution to this problem. That is, keep away from the Va J J (at least with the Willie) and we should all be alright. Who knows, it might be plenty enjoyable and fulfilling, but I expect less so for the ladies.

lol this talking point is nothing but a last gasp of a political philosophy which has exhausted its overton window ideas, and in doing so has enabled the platforming of anti-Semites, Islamophobes, racists, and misogynists, the ideas of which are market failures in the so-called marketplace of ideas. — Maw

No one's advocating the positions you've listed. But to the extent you're declaring conservative ideology failed, my recollection is that Clinton's election failed as did so many other Democrats in the last Presidential election year. In fact, it was a trouncing from the most local levels up to the presidency. If the liberals won, what does a loss look like?

The question of whether a sitting President can be indicted is complicated.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/05/22/can-the-president-be-indicted-or-subpoenaed/

This is where the debate must focus, not on the "it just ain't right some man gets to avoid prosecution." And before we forget, no one argues he gets permanent immunity, just no indictment while in office. You want him out of office, impeach him. To that point, the Constitution is clear. If you're curious how it's done, Google "Bill Clinton impeachment."

I mean, would you trust her making you a cup of coffee, much less having her decide whether there was a sufficient link to interstate commerce to permit federal preemption of state law?

I think he's no more or less sociopathic than Hillary Clinton and likely many other politicians.

I reject the Goldwater Rule as being without basis. It just seems like a bad rule that some irrelevant committee arrived at. No worries. I have come up with the Hanover Rule: "Psychiatrists, like all other citizens of the US, can say whatever they want about the President no matter how abusive or untrue it is. If you don't want people being mean to you, choose another job."

I'd submit a better case of incompetence could be found on the Supreme Court. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 85, and I doubt she knows where her pants are. This is Hanover Rule 2 - "Mental incompetence is acceptable in a politician as long as they are politically aligned with you."

Your thesis that the religious are more creative than the non-religious isn't a philosophical theory, it's an empirical one that requires a firmer definition of "creative" to be tested. I can't say though that I've noticed that the artistic crowd is particularly religious. Really it seems much the opposite.