You're doing the opposite. Atheism has always meant denial of God's existence and it's only recently that new atheists began to popularise the "lack of belief and nothing else" definition. — Hallucinogen

I'm not. And that fact (though, I deny the truth of it) wouldn't change what i've suggested im trying to do.

Selecting any definition is selecting one that fits your point. If anything, this reveals that your original basis "Just look at the bloody words lol" was poorly-informed. — Hallucinogen

Hmm. I have a feeling this is going to go nowhere. I asked you to look at the word. Its structure, its etymology, its meaning. Not its (according to you, anyhow) use. You ahve done the latter, and ignored the former. Disagree with the method, sure, but don't pretend you're doing something you're not (and in turn. impugning my method, falsely). I'm more than happy to just get a 'yep, well that's dumb' but being wrong about what I've suggested pushes me to respond this way.

And you say this right after complaining I'm taking a definition that fits my point. It shows you're not sticking to your original basis, which you claimed was "just looking at words". Now it has to be from a specifically atheist source, all of a sudden. — Hallucinogen

False. As explained above, you're being dishonest about htis. The fact that I (on your method) invoked a more authoratative definition is not an indication i've ceased using the etymological basis. This is now the type of sophistical weirdness talking with apologists gets me. May need to duck out.

It doesn't, because as pointed out in the OP, defining atheism as lack of belief doesn't distinguish it from agnosticism, since agnostics also lack belief in God. — Hallucinogen

I've dealt with this, in detail, over two possible propositions. I am now ducking it. It's been.. interesting :)

es, you did. See the bolded statement, above. — Relativist

There are three examples of my expounding, and explaining this quote. The bad faith in this response is beyond my ability to parse. If you did not read my treatment of this issue (three times) between that bolded quote, and this use of it, I cannot bring myself to delve into such an out-of-sorts use of conversation.

Immoral only insofar as it is a non-normative moral violation. I can say “you did something (morally) bad, but I cannot thereby affirm you did something you shouldn’t have”. — Bob Ross

Ah ok, this is bringing a bit of focus for me - I supppose i would still, prima facie, reject the distinction - but this is much clearer for where you're intending to go. Onward..

Sure, I was not trying to imply that a psychopath will always acknowledge nor recognize the categories. — Bob Ross

I suppose what i'm pointing out here, is that each set of 'categorised acts' for want of a better term, would be peculiar to each person. There is no 'shared' Good or Bad ..Which lands me at 8billion individual 'moralities'. I'm unsure this is workable? But I could be missing a trick, as usual.

Technically speaking, under this theory there is a gap between normative and non-normative moral judgments, which can only be bridged by affirming a subjective moral judgment that implicates one to the other (e.g., “one ought to be good”). — Bob Ross

Right right. Yep, as with my first response here getting clearer what you mean by delineating between the two - but I am still unsure this move is open. I understand the categories are non-normative, but I still cannot see any gap between what is good, and how one should act. If an act is objectively a Good act, I understand this doesn't mean "one should be Good" but I can't understand how it doesn't imply this, without much wiggle room. Again, metaethics - noted - But i can't see the disjunction between an objective Good and an objective normative theory relying on that. I suppose we could say "Fuck the Good!!" but this seems, on it's face, an immoral proclamation. I note the different - But i see the transfer of valence from fact to intent unavoidable and essentially only semantic distinction obtains here.

I was talking about semantics there, not moral facticity. It is a moral fact that “torturing babies for fun is bad” because this action can be objectively categorized as under ‘being bad’. — Bob Ross

I just don't see how. Per the psychopath example above. Perhaps i get the concept, but reject that it's workable?

They are facts because the categorization is objective, insofar as the said action is either promoting depravity, disunity, and disharmony or sovereignty, unity, and harmony (or perhaps neither) and this is not subject to our opinions. — Bob Ross

Fair enough. But that does seem to be picking an arbitrary set of conditions to relate metaethical categories to.

I don’t think the way reality is entails how it ought to be; so I am going to deny the existence of normative facts. — Bob Ross

Ok. That's fair. I don't understand why you would want moral facts, if they don't inform normative expressions.

Jiu jitsu!!

I was stupidly imprecise, and was meant to impugn "the war on terror" such as it was.

Fantastic; thanks very much for the rec!

Superficially related, the "D" in my name stands for Diamond :)

Why would I consider that? I haven't given any opinion on it whatsoever, and it isn't relevant.

Equivocating between several completely disparate retaliatory military actions sin't very helpful.

But for what it's worth I was at the time, and continue to be convinced the war in Iraq was a moral mistake.

I don't see anything outlandish about Israel's response here when compared with the US. — BitconnectCarlos

What does this matter?? It simply doesn't matter. It is an entirely different topic with almost nothing to be read across.

It sounds as if you're saying the USA sets the benchmark and we should work from that as 'correct'. I reject that entirely, so you're not asking questions that make any sense to me.

Thus Spake Zarathustra I believe, but @Vaskane is your man.

Fair enough. I've only seen takes on Sentience that include affective, subjectively "positive or negative valence"-type consciousness so that was my start point.

If you showed something resembling a reasonability to the subject, you might be getting answers.

Currently you're behaving like a derranged Twitter user that thinks a kafka-trap is an argument.

I don't know who should have won WWII, because I don't have the requisite information to answer the question. It's also 100% irrelevant and an indication that you mildly deranged by this topic

If an admission of a gap in knowledge sufficient to answer a glib, stupid question is a problem for you please feel free to continue that utterly indefensible nonsense you call an argument on your own.

That tells you everything about their position. — RogueAI

Sorry, this is a great indicator you have absolutely no interest in anything but finding enemies to be pissed off at. Not my circus.

That's not a reasonable question to ask. And, I didn't indicate i approved of the Hiroshima./Nagasaki bombings anyway. The level of assumptions you're making to even ask these question is bizarre. Calm down.

I don't care. It was seventy years ago, and I wasn't there, nor do i have accurate understanding of the circumstances beyond the macro, and in the macro, it doesn't matter. The allies won.

I think many do, but I am going off what I understand is used in the field..

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/sentience#:~:text=Sentience%20is%20the%20capacity%20to,From%3A%20Neuroscience%2C%202022

"Sentience is the capacity to experience feelings and sensations, to have affective consciousness, subjective states that have a positive or negative valence (Chandroo et al., 2004)"

To my mind, this indicates something more than merely awareness, or 'thinking' which consciousness entails. A crab would be conscious, but has no subjective sense of desire or aversion, merely a drive to a biologically necessary outcome (toward survival).

(also, i've heard the term Sapience to refer to 'rationality' or whatever it is we're discussing as a 'higher' form of whichever of the above two is, in fact, the more peculiar).

If you truly think they are comparable, you are out of your mind.

Not at all. I just think you're clearly wrong. Something must be presented to our sense organs to even perceive that something has happened (viz a viz being bitten by a mosquito). It need not be anything we ahve any knowledge of - in fact, cannot be. But it is presented to the sense organs.
RussellA seems to have 'caught the philosophical drift' i'm on.

Again, denying this is to deny that impressions come from anywhere but ourselves. Either, you think impressions arise from nowhere and no-thing, or you understand that some object must be presented to the sense organs to facilitate any intuition whatsoever.
This isn't even a problem for Kant, it's a problem for you.

If you can quote where i've said that, I'd be happy to answer.

As it is, I'm not a strawfan.

I most sincerely hope we are not heading for any kind of Krystallnacht but some equivalent at some point isn't inconceivable. — BC

I agree. But to my mind, taking it seriously as an actual imminent (lets say, within Trump's impending term) possibility is very much misguided. I hope i'm right, but am ready to be wrong and will be sorry if i am.

The January 6 Insurrection was an engineered event. "Volunteers" showed up and performed the desired signs of "resistance to the deep state". Manufacturing an event takes very little away from its effectiveness as propaganda of the deed for the receptive public at large. — BC

I don't deny the fact of this, but i do deny that it instills any real commitment in the population at alrge. Most people wont even vote.

From what I understand from cognitive science, the hierarchy is Consciousness->Sentience->whatever you want to call higher-level functions of sentient beings such as higher primates.

Consciousness only entails awareness.
Sentience requires feelings about that awareness.
Higher-level functions require something more. Rationality?

...So proportionality applies only to Israel and not the US in 1941? Why do you apply this principle so selectively? — BitconnectCarlos

How much straw can a straw man straw.

Hamas aims to eliminate Israel/Jews; Israel aims to eliminate Hamas. Perfectly proportional. In the long run it works out better for the Palestinians who will no longer be oppressed by Hamas. Call it liberation. — BitconnectCarlos

You must be out of your mind.

That's another strawman, and an unrelated example. No one, at all, has even mentioned teh American involvement in WWII.

1200
23,000

Don't pretend this is somehow 'going easy' on Hamas. This is way beyond Hamas now. No one in their right mind defends them (and the only ones i've ever seen do it can't even articulate who they are)

For sure, I'm not aligned with either so no issues putting that on the table... IMO both parties have a huge amount to answer for (though, i don't think that's actually the best way to frame a discussion of those problems)

I assume it's clear, but just so it's on record: I think Trump is an incompetent child, ill-fitted to working the desk at a Hotel let alone owning one. So the idea that he was President hits me as a joke. I can't grasp it fully. It is insane that someone of his nature (and stature, socially speaking) could have been elected. So, your concern doesn't miss me - a further Trump term makes certain outcomes very much more likely, and they are undesirable outcomes. I don't think Fascism is one.

The effects of Jan 6 are noted, although, I allow far less weight to them than you do.

However, it seems to me that the exponentially worse results of the BLM riots don't cause the same concern in you, so we're talking different languages I think. The ability for DEI and CRT-driven programs and systems to 'other' people based on a merely perceived political affiliation is absolutely abhorrent and has torn families and communities apart. The current Israel/Hamas thing seems a perfect microcosm of that. I think it is maybe a little misguided to consider those issues not as much a risk as the overt peddling of crap Trump and his mates are up to. I'm assuming they are just more-closely aligned to your vision for the USA. Whcih is fine. Plenty of Repubs who aren't psychopaths probably think that about Trump's vision.

1200
23,000.

Read those over, and over, and over until you have something less strawman to say :)

the demonising of a section of the populaton, — Wayfarer

It is fascistic, — Wayfarer

Fair that you're using hyperbole - But if the above lands it in 'fascist' territory I am at a complete loss as to what history books you're reading from i guess.

The demonizing of Republicans/Conservatives as ethical monsters in the last 20 years has much, much more to answer for imo.

Not far from krystallnacht — Wayfarer

uhhhh......
Krystallnacht was embodied in:

"Jewish homes, hospitals and schools were ransacked as attackers demolished buildings with sledgehammers.[6] Rioters destroyed 267 synagogues throughout Germany, Austria, and the Sudetenland.[7] Over 7,000 Jewish businesses were damaged or destroyed,[8][9] and 30,000 Jewish men were arrested and incarcerated in concentration camps."

All in the pursuit of Ethnonational intimidation.

I'm unsure how to parse your claim other than as either a hyperbole meant to illustrate the hilarity of such radical misinterpretations - or a position so politically partisan as to amount to a form of lying.

But given I do not fall into wild echo-chamber driven narratives perhaps this thread just isn't for me.

..and i don't think any amount of massaging the context can obfuscate this. It seems patent.

How come there's been no delineation here between Consciousness and Sentience?

It seems to me anything responding to outside stimuli is conscious, in some sense, but only beings with 'experience' can be considered sentient. Seems to clear up the mess for the most part...

A concept of self is much more rare and specific, human babies clearly don't have it in my opinion, I would even say it's more of an idea that we are taught as opposed to an inborn attribute. — goremand

I do think it's fair to say, though, that the capacity is peculiar to some specific type.

I carelessly quoted terms I don't especially like. — BC

Fair enough.

"Misogyny" and "anti-immigrant" aren't confusing you, I hope. — BC

None of them confuse me - It's their application that's the problem. But this seems clear to you also :)

Oh yes, definitely. — BC

Ok, cool. Not just me then LOL.

My question was more about people using Trump, rather than allying with him but i suppose you are esoterically covering that in giving little credence to his choice-making abilities LOL.

The problem with incompetence is that incompetent people often end up in charge of things - banks, businesses, corporations, governments. They don't always go under and collapse. Not right away. — Tom Storm

Hmm, that's true, and a blindspot of sorts for my thinking.

I would imagine that the risk with Trump is not his individual competence, but the doors he opens for others based on his impulse to subjugate his enemies and seek retribution. A small mind can unleash great forces, especially if they are the gatekeeper. — Tom Storm

Is this suggesting (i'm enquiring, not side-eyeing, to be clear) that we could expect other bad actors to be implicated? Trump being essentially a patsy?

And this is simply a differnce in how we read the events and personalities, I would say. — Tom Storm

Of course. Im just unconvinced of the reasonableness of reading it in a way that gets to worrying about impending totalitarianism/dictatorship/fascism.

However, being a scorned idiot does not preclude one from setting up a dictatorship — Tom Storm

Not per se, but I cannot see how incompetence would help achieve it. Given that the incompetence pertains to his general ability to form sentences and ideas...

I don't think that's the point I am making. I am saying that Americans have implemented severe measures (detention without trial, torture, secrecy) to deal with enemies of the state - real or imagined. — Tom Storm

No argument; but I can't see the relevance to the current situation. I'd still need to see something to indicate it might happen, rather htan is possible.

misogynistic, Islamophobic, transphobic and anti-immigration . — BC

These seem to be hard-to-define, usually-incorrectly-attributed, subjective and naive things to consider... (minus the underlined).

Am I noticing a somewhat socially left-leaning element to this forum?

it seems most readily employ words like "transphobic" to label ideas without compunction - which, in my real-world experience is utterly preposterous and the source of the perceived conflict is actually this imprecise and partisan usage to smear the opponent. An ironic twist, i'd think.

I don't think America is immune to dictatorship. — Tom Storm

I do not think that either, but I do not think we are seeing anything in the realm of the correct set of circumstances to pretend its likely to occur any time soon. Back to the 'slow build' theory.. Which i also don't take tbh lol, but is more tenable to me.

I don't doubt Trump would like to implement such an approach based on his behavior and rhetoric. — Tom Storm

I would highly doubt it. I think the idea that his behaviour represents more than a scorned idiot is a bit rich. I think it assumes a level of co-ordination and power that simply doesn't exist within US politics..

Guantanamo Bay? — Tom Storm

Is this not a Foreign Policy issue? Fascism's symptoms are domestic, in my estimation.

@Tom Storm
@schopenhauer1

https://repositories.lib.utexas.edu/items/596313fa-4545-4735-8a75-299c5b91fe8a

"Thus, active-duty enlisted personnel who identify with a political party are about twice as likely to identify with the Republican Party as are civilians. However, active-duty enlisted personnel are nearly four times as likely as civilians to report being Independent, and are substantially less likely than civilians to identify with the Democratic Party. "

Not directly related to Trump, but the only data i can find on that specific connection is from 2020 and is about military leaders, rather than Enlisted personnel.

Disappearance and imprisonment of enemies, establishment of prison camps for minorities and dissidents, rule by terror, etc. — Tom Storm

I couldn't help but think of paranoia here. The suggestion is that we're heading back to the 40s?

seeks to consolidate a dictatorship — Tom Storm

I do not think this is in the realm of a reasonable expectation, though.

There are some really, really wild leaps being made between his toddler-like behaviour and some kind of Machiavellian genius consolidating power. I just cannot understand how anyone thinks what's happening isn't chaotic and leading no where in particular.

I would be willing to say Trump isn't fascism, but uses fascism tactics. — schopenhauer1

100% Agree with this, for what it's worth, which was worth not ignoring for me.

Yes, the civil war aspect of this is another possibility. Or more home grown terrorism. — Tom Storm

I think it's also the more terrifying possibility, so my alert level is still quite high, in terms of geopolitical implications of this year/18 months going forward. Given that Republicans are likely to win that way, but a fairly overwhelming margin, I reserve judgement on any long-term outcome as i'm essentially a-political between lump labels like that.

I would expect to see them actually meet criteria to be considered fascist - ethnic supremacy, a rejection of democracy (see Belarus currently for an example that you'd be a complete fool to compare Trump to (and Nth Korea)) military governance (again, examples can be given here that would be entirely wrong to liken Trump to), totalitarian ambition (while i recognise Trump is likely megalomaniacal he is ineffectual in this respect - his own party rejects his more wild actions) and finally, for a country which purports to the be the worlds greatest, most powerful nation I would expect, with no sense of flexibility, that there were an imperial ambition.

I don't think we see any of these. Some other overlapping elements like economic conservatism or (possibly - though, this is definitely a live debate to my mind) social/cultural illiberalism exist in the MAGA/Trump crowd for sure, so i see it would be very easy, on a shallow reading, to lump all this stuff together as just go "Duhhhhh fascism!". Japan appears to be closer to Fascism than does the USA.

Time dilation shows that the passage of time is relative to motion, so in a way time is linked to change. — jgill

Ah. Fu... LOL

In physics, isn't time just clock-time? Kind of a practical use, rather than a discussion of what it is?

If you want to make an argument go ahead, but BS ad hom posts like are trolling and provoking. — schopenhauer1

It wasn't one, so i'm just going to ignore you in this thread now.

You've quadrupled your post. But the three extensions are of the first.

No. It isn't. You are free to think whatever you want about me. I simply don't care. That's up to you to think, not me to defend or encourage(would a smiley emoji have changed it's valence? No my circus). Nor is it my issue that expressing my interpretation, as an appearance to me of shallow thinking, hurt your feelings. Just walk on if you disagree.

Ok. So those like me who think it is more likely under Trump if he gets in are on equal footing? It’s more of a read of the situation, interpreted differently? — Tom Storm

I don't think it's likely under Trump either, though. We had four years of Trump and didn't come even tangentially close to fascism.

Jan 6 was a complete failure and resulted in no effect on the electoral or judicial system because it was utterly rejected by the vast majority of the country. And apparently still does

Edit WAY after the fact: This was wrong. The electoral system seems to be very, very marginally changing in a way that helps to defeat Trump, giving more support to my position above.

I'm not seeing any reason to think it would be different - In fact, i think its WAY more likely a civil war ensues given that the 'other side' is now aware to the fact that Trump supporters are able to become actively, and dangerously unhinged at large.

It would be helpful if you didn't charge me with ad hominem, and then speak about me in the third party to another posted impugning my motives. Seems to be an exact projection.

Your quickness to impugn when someone disagrees with you is quite clear to me. I've not done this for you. I've said it looks like you're not thinking.

Your assertion that most people who own guns are Trump supporters is an extremely low frequency take.

I'm not sure what you're asking for.

I can't see a single aspect of the USA that could lead to fascism. Im not really making an argument - I remained unconvinced it's a live issue.

Though, Schops 'slow build' idea could be a problem i;m ignorant to. But i've watch the USA develop across thirty years with interest and its just toddlers swatting at each other in a paddling pool.

Feel free to thnk what you think my friend :)