The Dems didn't lose the election, they won the popular vote by a margin wider than most historical presidential elections. The argument that they did not listen to their grass roots is mistaken. They lost in the states where the Electoral votes counted the most. They were out played, out strategized, by the Republican political machine. — Cavacava

Right, and the Falcons didn't lose the championship because they cumulatively outscored their opponents throughout the playoffs. And we should probably go back behind every Congressional decision to be sure that the representative majorities were equivalent to the population majorities. And while we're at it, let's throw out every Prime Minister because they were appointed by a hodgepodge of representatives and they didn't even get a single popular vote.

Or, we could say, guess what, the Democrats lost the election, fair and square. I know, I know, they would have won if this were the case and that were the case, but it wasn't, so they didn't. If you really want to know how to lose any support from those who might be inclined to come over to your side, keep being a poor loser. How about getting up, dusting yourself off, admitting you were bested, and standing up to fight the next fight. That's what people do who weren't raised on participation trophies and have actually had to lose at some point in their lives prior to reaching voting age.

And, no, it was not the Republican machine that secured Trump anything. The Republican machine hated Trump, did everything it could to block Trump, and is now trying to figure out how to deal with Trump. What won the election was Trump in all his absurd blazing glory. It was his money, his celebrity, and his saying things like what I'm saying that won him the election. The liberals cannot seem to appreciate that when they have these life changing, emotionally charged moments where they march, make really clever speeches, and condemn whatever it is they condemn, the rest of the nation is rolling their eyes at them.

The resistance to Trump, whether it comes from the media, the marches, the celebrities, or whoever, only strengthens support for Trump, both among his loyal following and those who were previously only slightly leaning in his favor. I really don't think the left appreciates how offensive they are to middle America in what might be the greatest display of poor sportsmanship by a losing team since the goalkeeper on my son's soccer team starting beating his defender in the back because he allowed a shot on goal. That was the best comparison I could come up with, but it is true. A bunch of women wearing pussy hats with the words "Nasty Woman" on their face doesn't convince Mildred from Peoria to vote against Trump, nor does it sway many Hispanics, Asians, or even African Americans (they weren't voting for Trump anyway). Other than forming a kinship among a small, educated, likely underemployed group of fairly privileged folks, all they did was publically express bitterness and offensiveness while ironically condemning public bitterness and offensiveness.

Yeah guys, you are making a difference, but it's not a good one. When the left loses even more seats in the mid-terms, are you going to protest some more in the hopes that you can shed yourself of every liberal in Congress other than a few districts in Massachusetts, New York, and California?

Descartes is underrated and underappreciated.

Boynton Beach's most famous daughter. http://www.palmbeachpost.com/entertainment/exclusive-phil-cash-outside-viral-star-from-boynton/5JVTLubHL8Wwg4eZxaKbhJ/

Cash me ousside, how bow dah?

One thing I would like you to think about is why it is that you found my remarks against Question objectionable and not my remarks against Hanover? I was rude to him, but that seemed to escape your notice, perhaps you laughed and even approved of it. The reason why you found my remarks against Question objectionable was because you identify with the situation and so felt the need to defend the argument - rather prejudicially - rather than seeing the rationale behind it. — TimeLine

It could also be that my alleged offense was being mean and Question's was simply being useless. Being mean to me is therefore considered fair comupance, whereas attacks on Question are considered piling on. It's understandable, but I agree emotionally driven.

I now fully understand your ban based upon your responses in this thread.

Is this an ethical question, as in what ought a moral government do, or is this an empirical question, as in after itemizing the structure of all world governments, from tribal councils to parliaments, what have we found to be the common denominator. The first seems more philosophical than the latter. The latter seems like it would be very general, like "they all make and enforce rules."

All excellent points. The rules:

a. The poster of the last word wins.
b. A poster is anything that posts, unless that thing is something else.
c. "Something else" is defined by the last word.
d. "Last" is defined by the person immediately prior to the person who wins, lest the winner and the immediate preceeding poster are the same, in which case the Assembly of 13 shall convene on the 13th of April in the year following the winner being declared,and they shall so decide in retrospect.
e. The Assembly of 13 shall be shrouded in mystery for eternity and should its shroud of nebulousness be clarified in any regard, you shall surely die.
f. "Word" shall be defined as any arrangement of alphanumeric characters other than "put" and "done.
g. The game shall formally begin the yesterday following the 3rd day preceding the crowning of the victor minus 13 lest same falls on a Sunday, in which case there shall be no game, but instead the day will be a day of fasting and contemplation.

Questions or concerns?

Consider it a parable, not a paradox, that you shouldn't be an indecisive ass.

You're sounding pretty close to what's called the Protestant work ethic. — Mongrel

I guess, but I don't know any culture that has no work ethic, if for no reason than food doesn't just fall from the sky.

It never ends, does it? — Question

Well, to summarize here, I've taken a very strong stance against your stance that whether one is idle or one is constructive is irrelevant. My position is that it does matter, and it is in fact pathetic that you find no more or less pride in spending your days twiddling your thumbs than in actually accomplishing something. I get that you don't actually twiddle your thumbs, but consistent with what you said, you would find the 25 year old thumb twiddler who is cared for by mommy no better or worse than an actual productive member of society.

I could offer the platitude "to each his own," but I don't think that. In fact, the only reason society continues to function is because there are few enough of you and the system is large enough to absorb you. And this is not a conservative rant. I don't care if your incentive is a bigger house or because you feel yourself an integral part of the commune. No society, East to West, welcomes the loafer.

To the extent you're in a transitional state, getting yourself on your feet and relying upon your mother, I see nothing wrong with that. I also really see nothing wrong with living with your mother as long as you continue to advance in your own life and not just fall into a state of easy dependency.

The definition of loafer (and pay close attention to the synonyms and the sample sentence):

"1. a person who idles time away.

synonyms: idler, layabout, good-for-nothing, lounger, shirker, sluggard, laggard, slugabed; informalslacker, slob, lazybones, bum
"to his parents' chagrin, he was a complete loafer" "

I wasn't expecting that kind of reply. — Sapientia

I like to keep people guessing.

I do think that I am better off than I was, in more ways than one... but what's better for me isn't necessarily what's better for others, and I don't think that it's right to judge Question's situation based on these preconceived notions you seem to have about the proper relationship between parent and child. — Sapientia

I understand we're faced with limited information and our opinions are no better than the information upon which they are based, and for that reason we often modify our opinions here when we learn additional information, but I think if we exercise such great caution before speaking, we'll never meaningfully engage. What you've said here is that you largely agree with the notion, at least based upon your limited experience, that there is true benefit from independence. I'd suspect that benefit is far reaching, affecting areas of self-esteem, outlook on life, social interaction, and emotional well being among many other things. I also understand you feel some kinship to Question, having been in a situation not dissimilar to his. Although, as I said, I do think the critical distinction between the two of you is his desire to remain where he is. In fact, he finds dependence no more or less a virtue than self-sufficiency.

I get that you might not be so bold as to call his position pathetic, but there's probably a middle road between that and silent respect for a position that you disagree with. For example, offering understanding, qualifying that what is good for you might not be so for him, etc, and then tactfully offering your two cents. Yeah, that's another way, but it hardly has the Hanoverian effect.

I'm just responding to your statement that judging is a bad thing. It's really not.

I don't care if what I'm saying is fun to hear, and I think your defense of idleness is absurd, and really nothing more than a rationalization for doing nothing of import. So get pissy, call me a dick, tell me I'm not the boss of you, and carry on with your vitriol, but at the end of the day, do nothing at all because that apparently is your highest virtue.

Your situation is critically distinct as far as I can tell. You are self sufficient. To the extent you're not, you sell yourself short. Sure I'm judgmental. Who isn't?

No interrogation. I was just pointing out to BC that your statement was ambiguous. I had my struggles in college as well, and there's much to be said about just hanging in there.

I do appreciate your ownership of whatever flaws you may have, and it does not appear you're as fragile as your protective friends might've thought. My most significant point really is that you (and me and everyone) be cautious about adopting a personal philosophy that allows for idleness. In truth, such philosophies are nothing more than rationalizations for poor conduct.

Been looking for a good troll. Know where I might find one?

Like already having a degree... — Bitter Crank

Well, he didn't say he had a degree. He said he had been to college for a degree. Going and getting are two different things, but I leave the clarification to him.

It's impossible to know why they banned you without seeing their correspondence to you. It's also a stretch to assume that their standards would coincide with this forum's standards and that should evoke concern from you about being banned here. At any rate, your idea of digging deep holes to solve the energy crisis is probably as far fetched as those posters were trying to explain.

Well, whatever the hell they are, they all dance the same when pelted with BBs.

Funny you should say that. I just got a ticket for hunting over bait because I put some nice stuff out by the curb on garbage night and was shooting BBs at the poor people as they came by to scavenge. The officer thought it wasn't sporting to do it that way.

You can play in the sprinkler and pretend you're in the Caribbean. It's sort of the same. I'll buy you a 5 pack. One's for me.

Immigration process would be tough for me... — Emptyheady

So ironic. The process is tough if you follow it, but really easy if you don't care.

I know, right? You can come too. In fact, I'm going to need a new roof soon, and I'd like nothing more than hearing your footsteps above me while drinking my mint julep. The insurance company rejected my claim of hail damage, instead presenting the questionable argument of "Dude, your roof is just old." So, yeah, bring your hammer and shingles and shit and swing by. It gets like 1000 degrees in the Summer on a hot roof, so the sooner the better.

I myself may consider to move to the USA in the future -- I have never been there. — Emptyheady

If you're in Atlanta, stop on by.

Good point. We're all enigmatic at some level I guess.

And I missed the Witt reference, but I do agree with him regarding getting a job. You're not bowing down to corporatism, capitalism, conservatism, religious fundamentalism, Trumpism, GW Bushism, or whatever it is that represents all that is evil by admitting to the value of hard work. I'm pretty sure even Marx envisioned that people would work hard.

And I'd expect you'd even admit to the real benefit of getting out of the rut of dependency and directionlessness when you secured a challenging job.

Porters annoy me, offering to do what I can do myself just for a tip.

This provides a pretty good summary, caricatures to be sure, but it makes both of our points:

https://youtu.be/n9huSs0g67c

Also... You have to be a certain age to remember why they smelled their papers.

"Matters" in the sense that what you say will doubtfully matter in terms of bringing about meaningful change, not that people don't matter. It's possible something we say in this thread will change a person's life course, but such things usually require far more effort. Our influence is limited, and that is probably a good thing.

I was philosophizing, which isn't a pragmatic exercise, but an academic one. Embrace him, reject him, help him, offer criticism, it hardly matters. Do you live under the illusion any of this matters?

Trumpish. Funny insult. Anywho, this has actually become a thread about what constitutes a dick and whether I fulfill those criteria.

Your mother's reliance on you is unfortunate, an outgrowth of the blurring of child and parent roles, necessitated by the absence of your father. Your feeling of dependency is understandable given your situation, but at least understand it stifles your growth. Dispense with calling me a dick or whatever, but do think about where you are and why you're there.

I'm not so obtuse as to not realize my harshness, but I'm also not so unkind as to deny an unparented child very (and I mean very) basic parenting. Where is dad in all this discussion about living with mom? I know, many grow up without dad. Too many.

Oh please. Save the psychoanalysis. I have two well adjusted kids, both succesful. I'm very hands off on the minutia, the opposite of the tiger parent. The path to independence is not paved with constant hand holding. You have no comprehension of the infinite compassion a parent has for their child and the simultaneous suffering that occurs with their every struggle all with the understanding that the baby bird must flap his own wings in order to fly.

All this is to say you may tell me the best way to parent when you have some inkling what it entails. Before that, it's just silly speculation.

Yes, you're right. He should earn minimum wage and let mommy care for him forever.

Here we go again...

Be glad that you have a decent brain between your ears. It's time to put it to more use. You strike me as an intelligent fellow who has not "engaged with life" yet. This is a common enough problem--you are not alone here--but YOU need to "get engaged with life". You need to get your ass on the bicycle and start peddling toward something specific. — Bitter Crank

Amen.

I do care and I do know what I'm talking about. I have kids around you guys ages. Coddling them would be a recipe for disaster. You guys sound like a bunch of kids calling the grown ups assholes.

Thanks for the kind words. Despite all my failings whatever they may be, I take nothing back from what I've said. We live in a world where fatherhood and paternalism are shunned, as in how dare I tell a young man to dust off and get back in there. I've not suggested living with mom isn't a short term solution, but it's not a lifetime plan. It's no plan. It's easy and lazy. Quitting is shameful. Deal with it.

I am not sure what an ontological probability would even mean. — SophistiCat

Note, though, that "ontological probability" is not a term I used. I would refer to ontology as the current state of being, which would describe Schrodinger's cat as both alive and dead at the same time.

That is, if you have a cat in a closed box, and an indeterminate event will determine if cyanide is released inside the box, ontologically the cat is both alive and dead until you open the box.

As Schrödinger says: "The psi-function of the entire system would express this by having in it the living and dead cat (pardon the expression) mixed or smeared out in equal parts."

Wiki: "When opening the box, the observer becomes entangled with the cat, so "observer states" corresponding to the cat's being alive and dead are formed; each observer state is entangled or linked with the cat so that the "observation of the cat's state" and the "cat's state" correspond with each other."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat