I agree. We ought to allow that the lies be said and the truth be ferreted out naturally. Everyone believes they possess the truth anyway, so it's not clear who gets to sanctions the liars. We all have a point of view. We tend to be more forgiving of those who use a bit too much force when selling a point of view we agree with.

There's not a single monolithic society attempting to convey any particular message. What you glean as being sacred in whatever society is most pervasive in your life might be interesting from a self assessment prospective. If your society has vacuous and shallow goals, then instead of ridiculing it because you can't control it, leave it. That you can control.

I don't mean to pack your bags necessarily, but I do mean to not count yourself among those who live in ways you disagree with. I mean that you need not worship those things they find sacred and that you don't. Your society, defined by those you choose to identify with, doesn't need to be so vacuous.

If you come to the conclusion your life has no existential worth, then I don't see an ethical justification not to change.

And from what I've heard, there were those who suggested exiting would result in WWIII, arguing an exit was equivalent to a return to pre WWII nationalism. It'd be a neat trick if we could cancel any decision (democratic or otherwise) if we could just prove through some sort of post decision litigation that someone tainted the information pool. I think we've got to trust our decision makers to separate the wheat from the chaff on the front end else we'll never be able to make a final decision.

Anyway, if you reject the referendum and impose the EU on some people who are quite certain they can decide what's best for themselves without some philosopher king parenting them, I think you'll be in a far worse situation than in just exiting. Hell, just ask Her Majesty what's best and forgo all this new fangled people power stuff.

Looking at this from afar, I'd say that the leaders of the EU are to blame. For years the Brits complained about losing their autonomy and the EU leaders knew very well that there was a large and growing contingent that wanted to exit. They refused to accommodate the legitimate concerns of the Brits and left them with the stark choice to either accept the situation as it was or make the risky decision to leave and face economic difficulties. The EU just assumed the Brits wouldn't leave, so they offered them no accommodation. This was just poor politics and leadership on the part of the EU because I think all involved still believe that a union is economically preferable. That they couldn't work it out speaks to political failure and not that the idea that economic unity was not a good idea.

Fear of economic ruin will not keep a country in the EU and fear of foreign takeover will not force people out of the EU. There is plenty of middle ground, but the middle folks didn't win the day.

Hopefully this will be wake up call for the EU so that they'll realize that if other nations begin to complain, they'll make real efforts to accommodate them.

From a US perspective, the idea of a foreign nation being authorized to direct the US in how it is to conduct its affairs is entirely unacceptable. Taking pride in being right is nothing to apologize for. If we cared what Europe thought, we wouldn't have left.

No, I want the referendum results to be disregarded in favour of what's actually right. I just happen to believe that what's actually right is to stay. — Michael

This assumes that you value economic prosperity over adherence to democratic principles. I would consider the violation of democratic principles (as in ignoring a referendum) to be a more negative aspect of a society than a decision to do something that might negatively impact an economy.

Suppose I fully believe in dogs based entirely upon faith, wouldn't a be a realist?

You'd be an agnostic realist. — Michael

I think there are many theists who believe in god based upon faith alone and not upon empirical demonstration who would disagree with the agnostic designation you impose on them. I'd think that that someone who had an unwavering belief in god despite demonstrable evidence to the contrary (e.g. Job) would be someone considered hyper-theistic as opposed to agnostic in any regard.

The best I can decipher from your distinction is that there are those theists who doubt their views at some level because they hold faith as a lower form of proof than sensation, and sensation offers no proof for god's existence. So, they're sort of weak believers, but I don't think all (or even most) theists think their faith offers a weaker form of proof, really just the opposite. They would say such things as nothing is more certain than God's existence and it's irrelevant what empirical evidence you show them in an effort to prove the contrary.

One might believe in something despite recognising that this belief isn't (strongly) justified (or certain) – and those that say that their theism reduces to faith rather than reason or evidence would be prime examples of agnostic theists. — Michael

If one concedes that one's faith is of little justification value, then it seems like that person is of little faith and not a true believer. If I tell you that I believe in god, and I tell you the belief is entirely based upon my faith so I don't really fully believe it, then I'd say I'm half ass theist who sorta kinda believes in god.

Suppose I believe in dogs based upon empirical evidence, but I then tell you that I really don't fully trust my senses (as opposed to my faith, which I hold to be paramount), am I an agnostic realist? Suppose I fully believe in dogs based entirely upon faith, wouldn't a be a realist?

Instead of simply taking a photo and posting it on TPF, maybe you should have made some effort to free that caged child.

Is this good writing? — csalisbury

He's got us talking about it I guess.

Several countries in Europe forbid expressing certain views about Nazis -- like, they were nice people, really, and didn't kill all that many people. Total rubbish, of course, but I don't quite understand why people there put up with such a rule. — Bitter Crank

For all that might be said by Europe of the US backwardness, we are extremely progressive when it comes to free speech, largely because it's enshrined in our Constitution, which we hold to be sacred. We can openly lie about politicians with impunity and we can burn our own flags while chanting racist slogans.

Of course, one must understand the European Nazi rule within the historical context and appreciate why the line may be drawn there. That regime almost ripped the continent apart and sent Western civilization on a very different course. The US, though, which was just a ripped apart by slavery, does not see it that way. In explaining why it struck down the anti-cross burning law as unconstitutional, it said, "Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone's front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire."

The First Amendment issue as it relates to hate crimes prohibits illegalizing the expression, but allows the prohibition of the conduct. Some examples (and you can Google the cites) from the Supreme Court: The Court ruled that laws prohibited flag burning were unconstitutional to the extent the law was prohibiting the expression of displeasure against the US. Obviously a state could prohibit burning things in public places as a matter of safety, but not flags specifically. The Court ruled that Minnesota could not prohibit the burning of crosses in people's yards specifically. People have the right to express their racism. Obviously the person could be charged with trespass and certain fire related crimes, but not a specific crime forbidding the racist expression. There was a crazy religious sect that would protest at the funeral of marines, somehow linking them to gay marriage (http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/thugs-try-to-stop-a-marines-funeral-then-bikers-show-up-watch/). The Supreme Court ruled they could do that.

The point being you have a God given right to hate, so it's hard to properly count hate "crimes" because they won't show up in an official count of "crimes" because the Court doesn't allow us to punish haters. Whether h8rs can be punished is another matter. I h8 h8rs.

I consider the US to be a UK spinoff. You're the Joey to our Friends.

Make of that what you will. — Michael

Yes, but Break Dancing 2 Electric Bugaloo was far superior to the original. Make of that what you will.

Ok, so I've read these two posts and the discussion is largely over the following terms (in the order these terms appear) (1) right vs. wrong, (2) subjective vs. objective, (3) aesthetic experiences vs. emotional experiences, and (4) good vs. bad.

Once we break down all these terms, it would seem the real question (if it's ever addressed during the definitional analysis) is "is beauty objective"? To say that it is not suggests I cannot create a coherent argument for why something is beautiful beyond simply saying that it appears that way to me. Yet we do in fact present arguments as to why something is or is not beautiful, as if we're trying to convince the other of our viewpoint. To say that beauty is objective is equally problematic as it suggests that the beauty would exist even if no one thought it beautiful. Such is the quandary I believe, as opposed to the definitional issues that were brought up.

It seems 2005 was a particularly bad year for Jews and hate crimes. It also looks like overall hate crimes were reduced from 2005 to 2014. I'd suspect there is an inconsistency with the definition and identification of a "hate crime" over the decade as well, making the comparison somewhat difficult.

The courts have weighed in on the hate crime issue over the years with regard to whether they violate free speech rights, so it might also be the case that such laws have been re-drafted more narrowly over the years to comply with the various court opinions.

It's obvious that our rise is due to the increase in quality that I bring to the table. I would only ask that others put forth the effort that I have.

I'd also point out that we all realize that the UK web is a rural backwater, but I do believe our success there might be an indication that we will eventually succeed in the meaningful US market. Like most, I consider the UK a beta version of the US.

Pretty much off topic, but if you ever quit drinking, you'll realize how boring bars are, how boring drunk people are, how much less it costs to eat a meal, how much earlier you wake up on the weekend, how much more energy you have, how much more you will exercise, how much more you can accomplish in a given week, and how you'll start having a different sort of group of friends. And I say this never having been a big drinker anyway.

Try it a month and see and report back to me.

Don't forget, this is Florida you are talking about. — swstephe

That some people in Florida are accepting of gays and others not hardly makes Florida unique. In Florida, you have a large retired population, a large Hispanic (especially Cuban) population, and some of the old traditional southern US Floridians in north Florida. None of this really has anything to do with the massacre, as if there needs to be an analysis of the mindset of Floridians to try to figure out why it happened there. It's just as likely to happen anywhere, and it's just as likely the target will be some other minority or even America generally next time.

All it takes is a disturbed guy with a gun.

I really refuse to allow a madman's expression to be representative of anything other than that particular madman. That is, whether gay rights are sporadically surging forward and backwards (so to speak) is a question, but it isn't one that should be raised by the recent events. Even our most ardent opponents of gay rights would condemn the massacre in the harshest terms.

I suppose today's young gays are quite different than the older gays. They've grown up in relative peace, seeing their rights protected and even honored. They don't have to resort to the restrooms, the bathhouses, and the cruisy parks that you mention. They can simply text and grind (I suppose that's how it works).

And sex among gays isn't the only thing that has changed. It seems from my vantage point that technology and changing mores have changed the behavior of the hetero population. I'm to understand that Tinder is the straight counterpart to Grindr. The point being that sex generally is easier to get and more accepted in all its splendid forms due to the miracles of technology.

When I was young and single, internet dating was just starting to emerge. You were generally considered a loser if you had to resort to such dating services. Today it's mainstream and accepted. One now must develop one's online social skills to procreate, which, honestly, are far easier to develop than face to face social skills.

I think that most people mean the same, or at least similar things, when that say that such-and-such is wrong, but then philosophers come along and overcomplicate things. — Sapientia

This assumes near universal agreement on moral issues. The problem is that moral norms vary depending upon time and place, with what is right in the US being different from what is right in Saudi Arabia, and what is right in the US in 2016 is different than what was right in the US in 1776.

In order to deny the relativity of morality (as in it's not dependent upon such things as time and place), some standard has to be asserted that describes the absolutist basis for it. It's not that philosophers are overcomplicating what we already know to be right and wrong, it's that they wish to explain how it is that slavery (for example) was just as immoral in 1600 as it would be in 2016 and why the oppression of women is just as bad in Saudi Arabia as it is in the Ireland (where Baden has a harem of women).

The rule-based approach and other such approaches (some forms of utilitarianism come to mind), when isolated from our emotional feelings regarding an ethical issue, seems to move away from what makes ethics meaningful, and move towards something else, such as duty - which can be blind. — Sapientia

Perhaps it does eliminate some of the feeling from the enterprise, but there is a valid reason for doing that, and it's to remove the subjectivity from the analysis. If my sole reason for not murdering is that it makes me feel hella bad, then it'll be difficult to convince you not to murder if you don't have that same negative feeling. If, though, I have a reason that transcends you and me (like God told us not murder), then that's at least provides an objective basis.

I think your position only works if we're all good people with the same views of right and wrong. Sort of like we all see blue the same way, so we don't need some philosopher offering a complicated view of what blue is. We know blue when we see it. I just don't think the same holds true for morality. Those who share similar norms typically are those in the same community, but the question is whose norms are truly good.

No, we're pretty different I'd say...

didn't will a change in feeling and thinking from "life is barely tolerable" to "life is OK, maybe even good" though I find the change is a relief. It just happened. Maybe the cold, wet rain and dark clouds will return. Don't know. — Bitter Crank

Amen my brother. The pervasive theme of this forum and its less evolved predecessor (especially as it pertains to political discussions) is pessimism masquerading as realism. That is, should anyone ever allow for the possibility that we're not all going to hell in hand basket (whatever that means), they are looked upon as naïve, or worse yet, someone trying to manipulate and control the masses into protecting the status quo.

I do recognize that you haven't really admitted that the world might not be on a collision course, but have instead suggested that your optimism has come upon you as would a random change in the weather. I suppose it goes too far against your grain to allow that you might be feeling better because things are actually better, but I, for one, will take your contentment as a harbinger that the world is on the upswing.

Funny you should say that because after I wrote that, I thought it sounded Bannoish.

Anyway, I'm much more entertaining than Banno.

And yet I am able to tell a random person on the street who I know nothing about and who may not share my worldview that I find lying wrong, and he'll know just what I mean. Curious I can accomplish that there, but the OP can't do that here.

I think we also need to consider the huge differences between the many countries in sub-Saharan Africa. — jamalrob

I think that's where the real answer lies in terms of why certain groups are less successful than others.

I seriously doubt that the entire plight of Africa can be blamed on Western imperialism either, which seems to be the thrust of the OP and many of the responses. Oppression, imperialism, slavery, genocide, are all part of the joys of living as a human being on the planet, and the pain exacted on Sub-Saharan Africa is just another example. It has to do with history, evolution, and all sorts of things.

I think he is addressing this to pessimists (the handful on here). The argument for him is IF the premise IS that life sucks, then why don't you just kill yourself. This is kind of the knee-jerk question people ask antinatalists all the time. I gave my response above. — schopenhauer1

The reason most people don't just kill themselves doubtfully is related to anything rational anymore than the decision to kill one's self is rational. Suicide most often occurs during very emotional episodes, with the rare exception being euthanasia after prolonged illness. the decision is rarely rational.

In any creature that has arisen from an evolutionary system that promotes survivability, you'd have to assume that few would exist who don't have a strong desire to live. Our desire for self-preservation is trumped only by our desire to protect our young or those within our group. All of this is to answer the question of "why don't we all kill ourselves?" is because we are programmed not to. That's the real reason.

An obvious argument for antinatalism would be to argue that life sucks, across the board. It's miserable, tedious, scary, and all sorts of negative things. This leads to the conclusion that this kind of life is not worth starting. — darthbarracuda

That's not an argument. It's a conclusion. If life sucks, then sure, let's not have life. The question is whether life sucks. I say it doesn't. What is obvious is that if you begin with the conclusion that life has no meaning, nihilism follows by definition.

I don't see Trump as any more or less evil than Hillary, and I don't even see him as predictably conservative. He's a self absorbed megalomaniac populist. That just means he might have the perfect set of flaws to gain high status, maybe even be the leader of the free world.

Maybe he uses the forums like teenage girls use text.

The OP seems to be the flip side of the question of whether rocks have consciousness. It's entirely possible that folks who are walking around appearing to be conscious are not, and it's entirely possible that things that don't appear conscious are (like rocks).

All that this means is that we can't know for certain what is taking place inside someone's mind, but it doesn't suggest that there'd be no difference between conscious and unconscious entities with exact behavior.

If I chose to use a women's bathroom, shower, and gym because I like to see women in various states of undress, what makes that justification less worthy than my justification that I'm using those facilities because I identify with women more than men?

Why is it ok for a guy to go into the women's room because he wants to have a cooter but not ok if he just likes to look at cooter? As I shower my naked body next to some random naked woman in the women's locker room, if I say "I want one of them things like what you got down yonder," should I avoid prosecution?

What if those are terms explicitly stated in the marriage agreement and agreed by both parties at the time of the marriage? — Agustino

If I agree to mow your lawn for $20 and I don't do it, the court will not require me to mow your lawn. You would be entitled to the additional costs you have to pay to get your lawn cut. If you could find someone else to cut you lawn for $20, you'd get nothing because you weren't damaged.

What does this have to do with your question? Assuming marriages were actual contracts governed only by contract law (which they are not), you still could not require someone to do what they said they were going to do in the marriage and you could not keep two people married any more than you could keep two business partners remaining as business partners. The typical remedy for a contractual violation is determining the financial damage caused by the breach and giving that to the damaged party, not in imprisoning or otherwise forcing the violator to do what he contracted to do.

Should unrelenting torture of the worst kind be a punishment for such a person UNTIL and IF they repent and feel sorry for what they have done? — Agustino

Sure, and if they repent immediately, set them loose immediately. It's just the stubborn ones we need to beat.

Yes, when there's this young girl wanting a breast augmentation surgery because she thinks men don't fuck her because she has small breasts or some stupid reason like this, absolutely opposed (why would I not be opposed, does it seem to you that I want to license promiscuity and facilitate it? ;) ). When it is someone who has suffered an accident, etc. that's different. — Agustino

I don't think it's any more likely that a young woman gets new breasts, a new nose, or liposuction because she's not getting enough sex as it is that she wears certain clothes or make-up to get more sex. It's obvious that women want to look nice (as do men) and that one reason for that is to be attractive to the opposite sex, but that is but one reason.

The point that you've refused to address is why you believe that modification of appearance is a moral wrong, considering it occurs on all sorts of levels, from sexual reassignment surgery to mascara on one's eye lashes. Instead, you answered the question of whether you were opposed to young women who wanted larger breasts only in order to get fucked more often. To that, you were opposed, but that wasn't the question.

Do you oppose women wearing dresses, high heels, make up, and coloring their hair? If not, why? Suppose a man does the same thing? Are you opposed to people modifying their appearance generally, or are you really just opposed to men modifying their appearance to appear as women? I suspect it's really the latter, meaning your opposition is in the blurring of arbitrary societal norms. You don't want it to be acceptable for men to wear skirts, unless it's a Scottish guy in a kilt, because that's a societal norm already, right?

But these people, as well as all other suffering people, do matter to me, and I will do my best to take care of them. — Agustino

You are such a caring and loving soul, committed to consoling the broken hearted and nursing them back to health while properly chastising the wicked who lack your compassion.

It's hard to take you seriously. At least present your indignation in a credible way.

That particular person X is lesbian, homosexual, transexual, etc. is not a problem to society, it's their freedom to be as they wish. It only becomes a problem when this seeks to become a social NORM or STANDARD. My issue is to ensure that this is contained as a minority position, and not allowed to spread through society, something that I claim is harmful. — Agustino

Then you'll have to explain (1) what the lesbian, homosexual, transsexual, etc. values are, (2) why they are harmful, and (3) how you intend to contain their harmful values. Obviously if your cure (#3) is worse than the disease (#1), then you might want to just allow their values to flourish.

Implicit in your position is also the troublesome idea that gays, lesbians, and transsexuals are the products of environment as opposed to genetics. It would seem that if their behavior were caused by genetics, it would hardly matter what societal norms might dictate. My eyes will remain blue even should the societal norm be brown. By the same token, if we declare gays the norm, I'm pretty sure I'll remain straight, which means I really couldn't care any less what society says because it would have no meaningful impact. I mean, the gays, lesbians, and transsexuals all seemed to persevere when society vehemently condemned them.

At least admit to your actual position, which is that you find lesbians, homosexuals, transsexuals and the etcetera morally wrong and you want a society that considers them as such. However, you also realize you've lost that battle and so you're content in allowing society to just absorb their nonsense as long as it doesn't affect you. You believe it does affect you once it reaches the point where you can't point your finger and call them bad without ostracism, so you want to still be able to do that in peace, thus your nuanced position.

That is, you want to sit in your grandpa chair cursing the new fangled world in peace damn it.

Since modern society no longer links gender identity to anatomy, but instead to personal declaration, the only course would be to allow for a single restroom with individual stalls where each person can decree their own fiefdom. My fiefdom would include all sorts of rules and regulations, but since my jurisdiction is limited to the confines of my stall, there should be no problem. That does seem like where all of this is leading: modern sensibilities make the male/female distinction fluid and subjective. I will withhold my judgments on such developments else be called a traditionalist, or, worse yet, a conservative. Let's at least admit though that a certain amount is lost when we bury our heads to obvious distinctions.

Along BitterCrank's distinctions between gays and transgenders, there is also a fairly profound distinction among many in the transgender community. The narrative we are told is that the typical transgender boy is a girl born in boy's body. As the story goes, he displays female traits early on, plays with the other girls, migrates towards dolls and teacups, prefers dresses and girls' clothing, avoids rough-housing and cops and robbers, and eventually moves on to developing crushes on the little boys. These people certainly exist as do their female counterparts who were men born in women bodies. In fact, these types of people (MtF and FtM) exist in roughly equal numbers, yet they are quite rare.

The truth is that the overwhelming bulk of MtF are men who grew up as typical little boys, playing among the boys, rough housing, avoiding tea parties and girl's dresses. They also developed crushes on little girls. At some point (often much later in life in their 30s or 40s), they began to fetishize about women, wanting to act as and appear as women, first in private and then later in public. The thrill of wearing women's clothing, walking and talking as women, and doing typical women activities eventually escalated into hormone injections and body modifications. Having sex with men is yet another part of the fetish of acting as a woman, but often they are quite heterosexual. There is also often a masochistic side to these folks, with a sexual satisfaction derived from the humiliation of being cast as the weaker sex and performing sexual acts on men. The term describing this type of transsexual is "gynophelia," a lover of women.

I do know that this distinction is controversial within the transsexual community, but there's no denying a substantial difference between homosexual and heterosexual transsexuals.

The point here is that in our fervor to hug everyone and accept them regardless, maybe we should look a bit deeper and figure out if there's a better way to respond than to simply accommodate their peculiarities. Maybe there is something better that we can say and do for Caitlan than telling her she is the best no matter what and building her out her own stall.

My first suggestion is that you offer a brief summary that doesn't require that I read your actual dissertation. You'll get far more feedback that way.

As you like it.

I took my son to a Shakespearean theater and got the cayenne flavored peanuts and a Guinness. There was this fat actor who played two roles, which speaks to possible budgetary issues. Some orthodox Jews sat beside us and they brought their own food due to their dietary restrictions. The seats to the extreme left and right were the cheapest, but they remained empty due to the difficulty one would have watching the play. The homeless man who blocked the outside entry way politely moved without incident.

Why just a father and son were there might have been contemplated by the father and daughter seated behind me.

All the world's a stage.

Unions are the only means workers (which is about 90% of the population, past, present, or future) have of protecting themselves from the predations of management. — Bitter Crank

And yet, as you say, only 11.1% of the workforce is unionized, but all these other folks have jobs that are just as good or better than those held by those in unions. This would mean that the unions aren't necessary.

It would seem that if the average worker has the right to unionize but chooses not to, then he would only have himself to blame if he is abused by management. Why are you insisting that he purchase a protection he has indicated he doesn't want?

Let's also not pretend that the unions have done a good job representing the employees. Unions, like all organizations, are much better at helping themselves than in helping others. Although it's doubtful that I would choose to join a union even if it was on the up and up, I'd certainly not join one that I felt was using its money and influence to help the union bosses and leadership.