You just have to acknowledge the reality of suffering and that up to a million people feel the need to commit suicide every year. — Andrew4Handel

If suicide is an option, then life is continued by consent once suicide is declined, which is by far the most prevalent choice. Ethically speaking, wouldn't it be the right thing to do to offer life, considering most often those offered it desperately protect it?

If I get two, would I have boxen?

I had a miniature schnauzer who bit everyone, including me. I really liked that dog. He took no shit. People would ask if he bit, and I'd say, "oh yeah, he'll bite," and then they'd try to pet him, and they'd get bit. I mean, why ask if you're not going to believe me?

I also had a Shetland Sheepdog, which is basically a miniature collie. He was a pretty good dog, but he was pretty timid and would pull on the curtains when it thundered.

I've had a few other dogs as well. My favorite dog is my cat, which, technically speaking, isn't actually a dog. She's really nice until she's not. You can sort of tell when she's tired of being petted, but not always, so you can expect a scratch every now and then. I like that about her. She takes no shit.

I want to get a boxer and name him Cassius after Mohammad Ali. I think the name would be cooler than actually having the dog, so I've held off for a bit.

Yeah, good chat.

The OP's questions were (1) did McEnroe speak the truth, and (2) was it ok for him to say it.

Taking the questions literally, (1) yes and (2) yes.

Of course, if the subtext was to suggest that women are inferior, then, (1) yes and (2) no.

You offer no basis for your bias in favor of the mathematically inclined, and until you do, it's impossible to convince you your conclusion is wrong. My best suggestion is that you ought not have preconceived notions without justification. Prejudgment is the cause of prejudice.

Instead of tattooing it, I'd get it tagged on my ear like they do to cows. It's easier to see.

If in saying "It's raining," one is saying he believes it's raining, then it is logically contradictory to say "it's raining but I don't believe it's raining."

The contradiction arises because it's implicit that the speaker who states it's raining is the same speaker who states his belief that it's raining and it's assumed that a speaker can only assert beliefs even should he proclaim his statement as truth.

Contextually and implicitely you're saying "I believe it is raining but I don't believe it's raining," so you have a direct logical contradiction.

A performative contradiction (e.g. " I am dead" or "I ate my mouth") states an impossible performance. I cannot tell you I'm dead because death eliminates speech. I can't eat my mouth because my mouth does the eating.

The raining example you gave is 2 seperate propositions, and of a different form than my examples above.

And so now a diversion into the wisdom of affirmative action? Nothing I've said hinted at whether affirmative action programs were morally, Constitutionally, or pragmatically sound. What I pointed to was the injustice of discrimination, not to whether our legislatures have properly addressed the evil.

Regardless, it is likely we share the same conclusions on this subject, but I'd suspect for differing reasons because I tend to look at law very pragmatically, and I see such programs as offering little good and usually to those least needy, but all of this is a major degression and topic shift.

Hanover's post suggested that the reason for social inequality was arbitrary, which is wrong. — Agustino

Where did I suggest anything was arbitrary? I don't even follow the use of this term in this context. "Arbitrary" describes the basis of a decision indicating it was without rational basis, just whim or caprice. It isn't like 1000 years ago a committee arbitrarily decided society should be a certain way. Society evolved the way it is, and perhaps for the reason you or Michael suggested. Obviously there's a reason things are as they are. The point is that the cause of the injustice offers no support for the continuation of the injustice.

We could provide a societal evolution theory explaining why certain groups became slaves and other masters, all of which may be correct, but none of which would justify continued subservience by the oppressed group. So sure, women were given the weaker roles because they were weaker, but since most contemporary jobs don't require clubbing tigers, adherence to Neanderthal norms is not only unjust, but it oppresses significant talents and limits potential human development.

It is a common rhetorical ploy on this site to state that one's position is obvious or self-evident. That is almost never true. — T Clark

Where I said "Let me state the obvious," I guess I should have said, "Let me state what ought be obvious. "

Sure, she understands the sounds, but in terms of her own thought processes, she doesn't rely on language. For example, should she think about where Fiona is, the meaning of those thoughts are not internally reduced to language.

If I say to my dog Ginger "where's Fiona" she darts around the house, looking everywhere where Fiona (my other dog) usually is (on the bed, under the bed, in the basement, upstairs in the kid's room) and she barks when she finds her. This is a very basic task for a dog. Part of Ginger's excitement is that she knows once Fifi is found, they both get to go outside.

That is, Ginger understood what I was talking about (Fiona and going outside) and her behavior was future oriented, fully expecting her current behavior to lead to an anticipated result. I am quite sure she has no language going through her brain, but the thought of her and her little buddy running outside was in her head as she went looking for her.

So, what is my purpose in this thread? — Thinker

Yeah, good question.

Let's state the obvious. Women have traditionally been relegated to submissive roles due to the power structure in place. Barriers have been reduced, but not eliminated. Some women have transcended those traditional roles through special effort, others have fully consented to embracing those traditional roles, and others still have tried but failed to overcome the limitations imposed by their social situation. That is to say that whatever successes elude women (other than those requiring brute muscle), is the result of environment, not some inherent leadership, intellectual, or emotional deficiency existing specially in women.

Are we really having this discussion?

It responds to stimuli - whether that amounts to 'counting' is moot, in my view. — Wayfarer

It counted without language.

Where did you get the idea that most women are mostly gentle? — T Clark

Yeah, no shit.

How would you know whether someone can count without language? — Wayfarer

If a bird sees two people go into the brush and sees one exit but continues to wait for the other to exit before it enters the brush, it has successfully counted. I'd guess it could count higher than 2, but I don't know how high.

Is counting prior to number? — Banno

Sure, counting can occur without language.

She's poorly adjusted due to a fucked up childhood, and she seems to thrive under the relative stabilty of Wosret's home, while still retaining some anti-social behavior picked up along the way. The path to her success is paved with unconditional love and support, although Wosret is perfectly correct in not accepting that duty if he doesn't want to.

I understand. The question was how to parent, not whether to parent. As to the former, I stand by what I said. As to the latter, I agree with your assessment. It's not your cross to bear. You're being taken advantage of, which is the role of parents and of fools. Since you are neither, her days with you are limited, determined only by your tolerance level and by your resolve to see things through, but there will inevitably be a day when enough is enough. Just don't let them take you down with them. Despite the freefall everyone around you is in, your future looks bright.

As noted in The Shoutbox, the key to surviving a terrorist is by running, even past those who seek your help.

Thank you for bringing clarity btw to an unrelated issue in my life.

I've actually had this thread on my mind awhile. Your sister has had a really tough time of things, and she'd be in such a different place if she had had stable parents and a stable life. I can't tell you how to parent her specifically, but I can tell you generally.

Tell her that you love her, that you are there for her no matter what, that as long as you have a roof over your head, she will too, as long as you have food, she will too. Tell her that she can mock you, criticize you, do whatever, and nothing will change between you, but you'd rather she not because it hurts you. Tell her you're so sorry that the adults in her life have let her down, that it's not her fault, and that you will make sure she gets the best you can give her.

Yeah, tall order. You won't be judged if you don't accept this task because you're not really her dad, but if you were, that's what you might say. That's what I'd like to think I'd say.

Trump and his campaign.

I actually do agree with you here whole heartedly on the point that talk without action is self righteous thumb twiddling. Sitting in the pew knodding with the preacher does nothing for anyone if it doesn't motivate you to act.

What will be discovered is that Trump did not collude with the Russians and that his firing of Comey, while ill advised, was not obstruction of justice. At best, the Dems will interfere with Republican progress, despite having a majority in all branches, which is all they're trying to do anyway.

Politics is about power, not truth seeking, and the Dems are no holier than anyone else.

This thread is interesting (and I'm not being sarcastic) to the extent that I get to hear how the choir talks among itself after a sermon.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2252532-despite-allegations-no-evidence-of-trump-russia-collusion-found/

No, I actually don't think I'm fit to be a moderator, but I would have other people to propose: Mariner, Thorongil, yourself, John and a few more! I'd aim for a mix between theist/atheist, progressive/conservative, just to make everything fair. — Agustino

Posts aren't moderated on the basis of political leaning. If they were, I'd delete all of BC's posts. The reason I don't is because he has something intelligent to say. And that answers the OP as to what criteria the mods use.

I would beat them and pound them senseless but regret it later while I lay awake at night staring at the ceiling.

Do that.

Get a desk job moving papers around or maybe be a paper weight.

My question wasn't sarcastic when I asked if the movie was sarcastic. It seemed they were parodying the idea of Japanese mastery by applying it to a bowl of noodles. Irony, sarcasm, and parody often gets lost in translation with foreign flicks, so I was really asking if I was missing something.

Was that sarcasm?

7th Seal is the first one that popped to mind for me. — Moliere

This one looks interesting.

My problem with the Matrix movies is I don't know if you're real or are part of the Matrix, so I'm not sure who or what I'm responding to. In truth, I don't know what I am. It's too complicated for me.

What do you, Philosophers, tell prospective parents about how to raise (Old Norse, raisa) their children so that they will be good citizens, good parents themselves, and good thinkers? — Bitter Crank

I can't say that I've ever offered unsolicited advice to prospective parents about how they ought to raise their children, and I'm not sure how well received it would be. My guess is that I'd tell them what I did, and knowing that my children are without flaw, they should take my advice.

In short, the key to success in most every regard is a real education, and if you stress that and insist upon that, all else tends to follow, including such things as good citizenship, morality, and general perspective.

I must also say that I appreciate your Old English and Norse references, considering both are my first languages. I still can't get a hang of this modern English.

Might be because so many of us are left-leaning and the left demonstrably has more humour than the right. ;) — Michael

I'm the funniest one here. Just ask me.

Let me tell you the politically incorrect answer. They've tried to ban Agustino, and there weren't enough moderators supporting that decision. I would release the PM from one of the moderators, except that he would be placed in an unfair position if I unveiled who it was. — Agustino

I'm now to learn that I was part of an elaborate court packing scheme as opposed to my simply having asked to moderate. Nope, no conspiracies. You'd be surprised how unimportant you are.

The deletions may be warranted or unwarranted, but the fact that the mods here have roughly the same views is problematic and might possibly have contributed to how the site is moderated (which is definitely true in the case of Empty). — Thorongil

Except I don't roughly have the same views as any other moderator on here. I voted for Trump after all. I know that's an odd fact I have to throw out to gain credibility. If I'm on the left, I'd hate to see what the right looks like.

And for the record, rants about the horrors of masturbation are neither rightist or leftist. They're just fucked up beyond repair. Just one man's opinion I guess.

Don't know. Can we fire him for laziness jamalrob? — Baden

I do feel I've been a bit lazy. If I ban you, will that be enough work for the day to keep me aboard?

It was. I wasn't necessarily saying that the mods knowingly pick on right-wingers for being right-wing (apart from Empty), but that 1) their political views may influence some of their moderating subconsciously and 2) it is interesting to note the fact that all the mods appear to be irreligious lefties in one way or another. How did that happen? — Thorongil

What you should realize is (1) any forum dedicated to the humanities will likely be left leaning, (2) any English speaking site that doesn't originate from certain areas of the US will likely be left leaning, and (3) the right is no more tolerant than the left, meaning that expect stupidity to be banned regardless of political affiliation.

While I do consider myself a part of the right (especially when lined up against most on this site), I am far less tolerant of the nonsense often presented on this site than are those commies you have finally exposed. That is, you'd do well to realize that certain right leaning folks owe their continued existence to someone other than me.

So, do please arrive at another theory to explain the deletions than bias. For example, perhaps the deletions are occurring because they are warranted.

no, I don't accept the conclusion that psychology has no therapeutic value.
— Hanover

I don't think anyone was offering it. — unenlightened

But you said "Science is very successful when directed outwards to the world of objects. But directed inwards at the subject that is (or isn't) scientific, it fails utterly, precisely because it must methodologically eliminate subjectivity in trying to be objective. Thus science applied to the psyche is a madness of the form of going to sea in a sieve."

I took "fails utterly" to mean it's useless.

Psychology isn't unique in it's reliance upon subjective history. Typically the first question asked of any patient is to ask where it hurts, and it's not possible to objectively verify the pain. A neurologist, for example, will diagnose migraines and post concussive syndromes based entirely on history. An orthopedist cannot simply look at an MRI and tell you if or how bad your back hurts. An arthritic back is rarely treated just because arthritis is seen. It's the subjective pain that is treated.

And just like there are objective elements in other fields, so too psychology. That you feel sad is subjective, but that you sleep 20 hours a day, you drink a pint of gin a day, that you can't hold a job, and that you commit crimes is not. The reduction in measurable criteria is evidence of resolution.

And no, I don't accept the conclusion that psychology has no therapeutic value. It can work.

Is happiness everything, or is truth important independently from happiness? — Kenshin

Your question assumes that an element of happiness is not a greater knowledge of the truth. It's reasonable to argue that happiness is attained through knowledge, which would mean that happiness and truth are interrelated. Such a definition of happiness distinguishes it from simple pleasure.

As John Stuart Mill said when defining happiness, "It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, is of a different opinion, it is only because they only know their own side of the question."

But I do need to say, at this point, it really sucks. ;-( — Wayfarer

Sorry for the setback. There will be brighter days. I generally rely upon the principle of sour grapes when such things happen. The new job probably would've sucked too.