This is just one source showing that in the U.S. the police have no obligation to protect you. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

I think you are confusing the police with the medical profession if you think they ought to do no harm.

Take the sperm and the egg. The sperm and egg alone cannot grow a fully functional human body. It is not until the sperm and egg meet that a substantial change happens — LostThomist

Arbitrary. The fertilised egg, and the foetus that it evolves toward is a property of the body that contains it, and it is only through her effort and permission that a "human life" can be born of it.
Any attempt to try to characterise the foetus ( a thing completely dependant on the body of a woman) as a 'human life" or "person" is an attempt to deny the bodily rights of women.
If you want to act like a Victorian, find yourself a time machine.

1) For the purpose of a clear argument I will (for the time being) separate being biologically human from any concept of personhood. In doing so it is undeniable to say that biological human life begins at conception. — LostThomist

Wrong! You have stumbled at the first hurdle. There is no point trying to get this rather clumsy straw man into the thread.

Of course - 100 is the average by definition. In my experience of people in everyday life, apparent IQ level does not have a high correlation with competence, maturity, compassion, or responsibility. — T Clark

Indeed. IQ does not measure intelligence. It measures the ability to do the test.

I think you have the sense of it.
Marx views economic history as a deterministic process making individuals near to powerless; that for any given instance of the process we are pawns in the game of evolution, able to recognise our situation but as individuals have limited power to change. Collective action on a wide scale is necessary to offer the fruits of labour to be shared to the benefit of the many. Against this there is a tide of the power of capital whose natural tendency is to enrich an increasingly small group of beneficiaries to the detriment of the few and to whole economy.

Bump stock. Shit stock.

No person can have any legitimate reason for owning or using such a weapon.

It has been firmly established that there is zero correlation between guns and violent crime.
— JustSomeGuy — Sapientia

Total croc of shit.

Tell that to the Manchester bomber, he could not find a gun because they are forbidden in England. — Sir2u

So are you also in favour of people having bombs??? LOL

Like I said: You are making a fool of yourself.

One fact seems blatantly obvious -- and has been addressed by Steven Pinker in his book regarding violence -- guns don't kill people, people kill people. This is an empirical fact. — Youseeff

It's a bullshit fact. Here's why..

People with automatic weapons tend to be capable of exterminating several children quite easily.
People without guns find it much harder to kill children.

Whatever. — Sir2u

Just making a fool of yourself

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1223193/Culture-violence-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html

The statistics seem to be showing that there is a problem with those laws application as well. — Sir2u

If you want to be taken seriously don't quote the Daily Fail. They are top of the list for reporting inaccuracies in the UK.

I wonder if any one has the mental capacity to imagine a country that has a legal test for such a thing as mental capacity to disqualify a community of people from voting.
The law as it was, is not enforceable in an open society. And such a law is danger to democracy.

It is of vital importance that every adult feels they have a stake in society and that none are excluded for arbitrary reasons.
And thus it should be with only in the most extreme circumstances that a person is forbidden by law.
I see no reason why anyone would object to allowing people with 'mental disabilities' to vote.

Any one capable of first registering, then making the effort to find the polling station, and selecting a candidate has sufficient ability to discriminate in the choice of a candidate. The chances of negative consequences occurring by the exercise of this right are near impossible. So few vote for the "Monster Raving Loony Party" that they shall never have a successful candidate.

This is completely a non-question, as the benefits outweigh any negative effects.

Already been done., before the sculpture.
The artist was beaten-up by Trumpers.



https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/may/07/donald-trump-penis-painting-ilma-gore

"Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy whip!"— (Thus Spake Zarathustra, 18. Old and Young Women) — Daniel Sjöstedt

Even the ubermensch is a complete slave to his bollocks.

Men have a daily urge to spread their seed and much of the time women get pretty bored with being the receptacle for men's spunk. As a result men like Nietsche have for centuries resented women; resented their control of their libido; resented their ability to reproduce; and the men think they ought to have the right to fuck whosoever they want, when they want.
Nietsche was just an ordinary wanker, like everyone else.

No boredom is just evidence of a lack of imagination.

If it is a consequence of natural law that all swans must be white, then all observed swans will be white. — charleton

This is deduction. not only is it NOT induction but it is wrong, indcutively
"Swans" are what we call some birds. There is no natural law defining human speech.
If we define swan as a type of white bird then black swans are not even swans. Nature does not give a hoot what we want to call things.

I think we have a pretty good idea.




https://pmchollywoodlife.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/donald-trump-appears-to-scare-the-life-out-of-melania-in-viral-inauguration-ftr.jpg?w=148&h=90&crop=1

...

The gown (in the painting) is thought to be a nod to Milly's support of Planned Parenthood.
— Cavacava

In what way??? — Bitter Crank

No one would be able to navigate through that mess of cloth to impregnant her?

Judith's expression is just too dumb on this one. — Akanthinos

There is more craft, skill and sensitivity on this tiny part of the Caravaggio than on all the other posted images thus far.
https://www.pinterest.co.uk/pin/330592428871267531/?lp=true

What Freud did, of course, as regular users of this site will recognize,

This is just the ordinary failing of any artist who tends to base their idea of what a face is upon the thing they see in the mirror. There is nothing special here. Fraud painted himself most of the time.

The light is sublime, in that Caravaggio.

A hedge, perhaps, and not a tree. — Bitter Crank

Is the hedge significant to Obama?
Maybe because he spent 8 years hedging his bets?

"God gave us free will". — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Calvin thought this was rubbish.
If you are a Calvinist Protestant there is no problem. But you have to accept that God knew before he created you that you would die a saint or a sinner. An almighty God could know no less.

So where in the Bible does god insist on free will?

As to evidence of illegality, the OP makes clear there's history and a predilection. — tim wood

A predilection to have sex. So what? That's 99% of the male population.

↪charleton Supposing "Tree Falls" was a professional who had a mandated duty-to-report child abuse, rape, plans for murder, etc. Would loyalty to family trump the law in this case? (Many people who have a duty-to-report make it a practice to caution anyone about to unload confidential or confessional information to be careful, because they are mandated reporters.) — Bitter Crank

I don't have evidence that he has sex with girls under 16, — Tree Falls

I think this just about covers it.

In a case where there was evidence, a professional would be bound to declare a conflict of interest and recuse himself.

I don't have evidence that he has sex with girls under 16, — Tree Falls

My I just draw attention to this sentence, for those moralists hiding their jealousy with scorn.

accessory-before-the-fact. — tim wood

Nonsense terminology. You are not procuring, not even holding the condoms.

Really? The point is that the brother's practices are not private. And you may have a duty of loyalty, but in terms of love and forgiveness, not in terms of ignoring his actions to the peril of others. And don't forget civil and criminal notions of accessory-before-the-fact. — tim wood

He's your brother! FFS
You duty to family is higher that the state.
And you have no evidence of illegality as you said.

a state of perfection. — Justin1

define perfection, without using value judgements!

I don't have evidence that he has sex with girls under 16, — Tree Falls

My questions for the forum:

1) What do you think the age of consent should be?
2) Do you think my brother's behavior is wrong?
3) Should our family friends be told about my brother?
4) If your answer to questions 2 and 3 are yes, what in general am I ethically obligated to do? I am thinking above and beyond notifying our friends. Should I create a website solely devoted to my brother's behavior and engage in SEO so that his name will be a top 10 hit if someone googles him? — Tree Falls

1) In an ideal world the age of consent would be individualised.
2) It's only wrong if his 'partner' is not capable of making an informed choice; or if he uses deceit of any kind, such as lying about feelings, or making promises he has no intention of following through.
3) Only if you are a sneeking little gossip. A person's private life ought to be private. Would you be happy to divulge all your own personal acts of self abuse, or sexual peculiarities? This is YOUR brother is it not? Do you not have a duty of loyalty?
4) I suggest you reflect on the fact that you might be jealous of your brother's sexuality. Either emulate it or admire it. Don't be a sneeky git.

style resemblance — Cavacava

Bottom feeding jargon.


His works float between expressionism and quasi realism.
No where near hyper.

Freud was a hyper-realist — Cavacava

Er, no!

THIS is hyperrealism

Or THIS.

But then we still get to choose to follow these instincts or not. — Perplexed

Describe how you make that choice, please!

how is it that it can be applied to the world? — Perplexed

Kant was good at thinking 'Copernican turns'. You might want to think about your question backwards?
Maths and the world is a dialogue. Whilst we invent maths, we draw our instances from the world.
But if you are yet to be convinced, please show me PI or any other irrational number in the world.
The world seems to be a round hole and maths is a square peg, as it relies on integers, which also do not exist. 1=1 might be true. But an orange is never equal to an orange.

It could be better put into this simpler form:

If it is a consequence of natural law that all swans must be white, then all observed swans will be white. — Janus

But all this is deduction, not induction, as I was trying to point out.

FYI, but not particularly relevant....

It's okay to disagree with someone, but I don't see why you insult his intelligence. — Agustino

LOL
He does that for himself.

What role do you play in determining them? — Perplexed

I am what determines my actions. My life, my experience, my emotion, my volition, what my body tells me. Free will is simply not being constrained by external forces - it is not some magical ability to act against what makes me determined.
I am a determinist. I am determined.