I've had multiple poems deleted because academic philosophy doesn't value the written word unless it promotes the agenda of the wealthy and powerful and this is a commercial website. — wuliheron

I thought they were deleted because it was bad poetry. I suppose it's theoretically possible that a useful response could be written in poetic form, it's just that you've never done it so you have yet to have a valid complaint.

I really wish you could see yourself as most see you, as just a pretentious hack who has nothing to say other than to drone on in poor poetic form about the capitalist machinery that supposedly keeps him down.

When starting the thread, it was a coin toss whether to put it in General Philosophy or Philosophy of Religion, if that is what you are referring to. The moderators could move it to the appropriate sub-forum if necessary. — 0 thru 9

Fair enough. I just wonder if it's either, though. I find this more a theological discussion than a philosophy of religion discussion. Assuming I come into this discussion with the notion that these Eastern belief systems are B.S., it seems I'd have no place in this discussion other than me constantly screaming that I'm a non-believer.

On the other hand, if you were debating whether the Tao itself made sense and were presenting logical and empirical bases for your position, then it would be a philosophical debate and my screaming that I'm a non-believer would be misplaced.

Many people find the idea of ethics and values altogether worthless in our modern material world. — wuliheron

Interesting aside.

I wish I could have back the two minutes of my life that I lost reading that.

How is any of this philosophy?

In my view this would be like: "The best / most intimate knowledge we have of what is causing our physical behaviour at a given time". We're able to know why we raise our hand, why we take avoiding actions, why we choose low fat over regular, etc. Moral competence then comes from interacting with other agents who are also capable of such understanding and expect you to have the same understanding. — Gooseone

The problem with this solution is that all people generally know why they have raised their hand or generally performed any act. They did it because they wanted to. The question of moral responsibility would therefore not rest in your knowledge of why you did it, but it would instead rest in your knowledge of whether it was a right or wrong act. The fact that I know why I shot you (I just sort of felt like it) should not be the determining factor in whether I should be held responsible for it. The fact that I lack the capacity to know right from wrong would make it so that I am not responsible for it. Lack of moral knowledge, or more precisely, an inability to comprehend the difference between right and wrong is often used as the legal definition of insanity and it serves as a defense for criminal acts.
The McNaughton Rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M'Naghten_rules

Yes but it's vacuous. It's empty of content. It makes no difference if you are a brain in a vat, or you are actually a living human being - it makes no difference to the actual business of living. Descartes was fucked up because his skepticism undermined itself. Such skepticism undermines the meaning of truth, and thus renders its own truthfulness non-existent and incoherent - it destroys the context in which talking about truth and falsity makes sense, and then proceeds to talk about truth and falsity. The evil demon, brain in a vat, etc. hypothesis is nonsense - utter nonsense. — Agustino

Not so much. Descartes first conclusion was exactly what you're getting at, which is all that he could know was that he was a thinking thing, which is accurate whether you are a brain in a vat or actually as you appear. His reliance on an all good God to get him out of his solipsism was necessary or he'd be stuck. You've just got to accept that seeing is believing and root it in something. You root it in pragmatism (i.e. what difference does it make?), Descartes in God.

And when you say it makes no difference if you're a brain in a vat, I'm not that's true from an existential analysis. If you knew that your life and your death was just a computer program beginning and ending and that you'd be rebooted upon "death" (i.e. the evil genius would just hit restart), would that not give you a sinking feeling of meaninglessness? When you play a video game, doesn't it affect how you play it if you can reset it when you die?

I understand I wouldn't know I were a brain in a vat, but such is always the case. Even as I stood there deciding to become a brain in the vat, logic would dictate that I might already be in a vat and this is just part of my vat brain experience.

https://youtu.be/zE7PKRjrid4

You can't know that the red pill isn't just part of your matrix

If I'm a brain in a vat it matters because it requires a higher power, an evil or benevolent genius brain fucking me. It makes me religious and shit.

I'm the master of disaster for 2 reasons. 1. It rhymes and 2. take that bitch!

These questions fuck with my mind too much. How do I know you didn't just push the button and leave me thinking I'm pushing the button now that I'm just a vat brain?

Easy come easy go.

400 marijuana charges would not implicate the 3 strikes rule. Read the law or you could just keep on spouting nonsense, which seems to be your preferred tact.

Again, the data you provide is false, wrong, and nonsense. Show me 1 actual inmate who was sentenced to 7 years in prison for simple pot possession. When I was a prosecutor in the 90s, I think the typical sentence was $300, the cost of a speeding ticket.

There are absolutely no statistics you've cited supportive of your position that a sizable number of state or federal inmates are incarcerated for simple possession of pot. If you're seen smoking pot, you'll likely get a warning or maybe a citation. If they do book you in, zero chance you'll get prison time unless you're already on probation or parole. And by zero, I mean zero.

Still off point. You referenced stats that were outrageously false. Do you now concede you just made them up and wish to talk about something else?

If, as you say, the general public is intellectually incapable of properly setting its own course, why should I trust you (or anyone) to do it for me? How is it that you have transcended the level of the common man, and how can little old me know you're the one to trust? Should we perhaps just designate an elite ruling class comprised of those who are most certain they're just and true and have them care for us simpletons?

This post is non- responsive to my comments. You made an outlandish claim about marijuana related imprisonment, and now you're quoting stats for just arrests and how they compare to other drug related arrests. Are you now conceding your prior stats were BS?

The trend for many years has been toward decriminalization and outright legalization of marijuana. Most large cities have been issuing citations instead of even arresting simple possession users.

0.1% of all prisoners are there for being a pothead (recreational users). https://learnaboutsam.org/the-issues/marijuana-and-whos-in-prison/

You were off by 200x with the number you provided of 20%. It would be extremely uncommon to find a simple marijuana user in prison, considering simple possession is a misdemeanor in most jurisdictions and prison is reserved for felons. The percentage in county jails is .7%, 25x less than the number you provided.

Sometimes I feel like that: I am limited by my genes, my upbringing, and all the biology, so sometimes people expect too much from me, to be something I am.

So, do you think that humans should have the right to legally be recognised as machines or robots? — DanEssex

I think you should be able to be treated as a machine, but I am a machine like you, and I have been programmed to not treat you like a machine. Sorry.

Where I live, using the phone is involved in more fatal accidents than alcohol. The statistic for alcohol is far less than 80%. — Metaphysician Undercover

Where do you live, at the Samsung Galaxy S7 store?

What a long winded post trying to rationalize why you don't drink. Why don't you just own up to the fact that you're a light weight little girl who can't hold his liquor so you must abstain?

I agree there are certain fundamental beliefs (synthetic a priori), but I wasn't so much concerned with those as much as much more complex beliefs, like my intuition telling me not to take a job, for example. My gut often speaks loud and clear, but I go behind that and try to figure out why. For example, does logic dictate taking the job? Is it fear causing my gut to retreat? Is the fear justified or a weakness? That's usually my process, for what it's worth.

The question is whether you trust your instinct or overrule it with reason.

Wow! So much nonsense in so little space.

Clinton's popular vote lead was 1.5m, but note that her California lead was 3m. Remove Ca from the nation, and the election isn't close from any perspective, thus my comments about it becoming a regional party. You also have to accept that Trump didn't campaign in CA because it couldn't be won by him. Had the election been decided by popular vote, you'd have expected Trump to have chased and gotten some of those votes he conceded.

Well, it's not just you moving right. Some sobering facts for Democrats: 67 of 98 state legislative chambers are Republican (most in history), 30 states have both Republican Houses and Senates (most since 1978), 23 states have Republican Senates, Houses, and governors, 30 states have Republican governors. http://rslc.gop/blog/2016/10/04/republicans-have-gained-stength-in-state-legislatures-and-governorships/.

On the federal level: both the House and Senate are Republican as is the president. The Supreme Court is conservative and will likely now stay that way for decades.

And it gets worse. According to a news report I heard, 1/3 of the Democratic representation in Congress comes from 3 states: CA, NY, and MA. That is, the Dems are suffering from what they attacked the Reps of for many years: regionalism. The Republicans are in fact not just a bunch of backwood southerners in the land that time forgot. Its the Dems who now find themselves in smaller tighter groups where they can lecture from their podiums onto the masses.

Weird.

I'm not sure your thoughts address the question of whether I, as an American Jew, should fear Bannon as an anti-Semite. I don't think I have cause to based upon what he said.

But the flip side of what you said is simply that the media has lost its power to set the tone or direction of the Democracy.

Yes, quite as predicted, the question of "is Bannon an anti-Semite" is being answered by telling me Israel sucks.

Has anyone ever seen Banno and Bannon in the same room? Might be the same person. Just saying.

An op-ed from the Israeli newspaper Haaretz: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.753694.

It looks like there's little evidence Bannon hates Jews. The problem with the left yelling racist is that they're now the boy who cried wolf.

What I'd need to jump on the hang Bannon bandwagon is some real evidence that Bannon has real plans to push forth anti-Jewish policy. In truth, the liberal agenda is far less kind to Israel, and I see that as a real threat to Jews, far more than the evangelicals who fully support Israel but who believe I'm going to straight to hell. All this trying to decipher what goes on in the hearts of politicians isn't real interesting to me. I'm well aware they care only for themselves anyway. My concern is pragmatic. I trust they're all scoundrels regardless of stripe. You don't need to prove that to me.

So, I'll answer the OP, which was directed to me, yet took the expected turn of becoming a debate about whether Israel should exist. The question is whether I oppose Trump's decision to appoint Bannon because he MIGHT be anti Semitic.

My general view is that few are pure of thought and that racism, xenophobia, and even sexism fill everyone's lovely hearts. I find the desperate search for the disqualification of human beings from various roles disgusting and hypocritical. That is not to say that I'd fully accept an open Jew hater, but it is to say I'm not willing to engage in a witch hunt largely designed to prove the given narrative that Trump is actually a Klansman who interacts with neo Nazis.

Prove to me Bannon hates me and I'll hate him back, but suggest to me he hates Jews and I won't care. The truth is that at some level we all hate each other, but I'm content accepting what appears at and just below the surface and not in distilling out every difference we have so that we can justify hating one another.

And the subtext here might give you an understanding of why Trump supporters are able to support him and why the media so failed in garnering the hate for him they so wanted to drum up.

The history of British trade you provide is helpful and brief, but I wonder about other issues not discussed. Britain has always had an independent streak, never considering itself European entirely. It never fully invested in the EU and always resented having its policy matters decided by others.

My estimation is that neither the US nor the UK cares about globalization per se but simply desires self promotion. As long as globalization leads to greater prosperity, then it will be in vogue. Otherwise, why allow it if it only makes others rich?

Clinton did not mention the Constitution and did not indicate that constitutional interpretation was the role of Court. Trump did. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/10/19/the-final-trump-clinton-debate-transcript-annotated/?0p19G=c.

Clinton's only reference to the Constitution was in her complaint that the Senate had failed to vote on Obama's appointment.

I voted for Trump because in the debate when asked what he was looking for in a Supreme Court Justice, he, unlike Clinton, mentioned the word "Constitution." Yes, their job is Constitutional interpretation, not contemporary morality enforcement.

Where "value" is defined as a hat and "being" is defined as bald men, then no, not every being has value, but there are many bald men who would benefit from having a hat who don't have one.

And so your opinion would have been the same had Clinton won, considering the polarization would have been the same and we'd still be on the same 200+ year collision course set in motion when the Constitution set out the foolish election system it did?

So now the Republicans control both houses, presidency, governerships, State legislatures, and Supreme Court, and the narrative was the party was in shambles. The narrators are the only thing the Republicans don't control.

Oh please, you're not sad that things will be destroyed that people worked hard to achieve. You're sad that achievements you agreed with are being destroyed. If the preservation of legacy is important to you, take comfort in the fact that Scalia's legacy will be preserved with a solid conservative replacement.