I vote "none of the above" because you are reifying an abstraction. Consciousness isn't a thing that is housed, nor is it an illusion. It's a process of moving from one intentional state to the next.

Most people see this trashing of American cities for what it is, a hotchpotch of looters, rioters ,moronic students and middle aged people (like the majority on this forum) who should know better but have stuck with their student days leftist bullshit. It's all very sad. — Chester

Your comment brings me back to my left-wing student days: same old, same old from the right-wingers: ignore the legitimate protests by grouping it with the criminal behavior.

Where's our President? Clearing out peaceful protesters with tear gas and rubber bullets so he can stand in front of a church to get a picture taken.

Apparently quite a few people here do, because some of the girls asking money for it have been 18 for years. — ernestm

This answers your question about whether or not its ethical: of course it's ethical, since it will keep her perpetually young.

It's particularly sad that Trump slings this kind of mud on a near daily basis

They sling it at him. They deserve it. — NOS4A2

ROFLMAO!
I picture the petulant child that is our President sticking out his lower lip and crying, "They started it!" Which is sad enough, but that fact is, Trump a bully who has instigated more mudslinging than anyone else in history. By your grade school logic, Trump deserves everything HE gets.

A senate probe will suffice. I suppose Ukraine should want to know why the previous American administration was meddling in their politics, as well. — NOS4A2

That's the nature of our political system, but it's unfortunate that it has sunk that low. It's particularly sad that Trump slings this kind of mud on a near daily basis (consider his proclaiming that Joe Scarborough should be investigated for the accidental death of Lori Klausutis).

An investigation into Biden is warranted because his son was on the board of a corrupt Ukrainian energy company at the same time his father was vice-president and point man in Ukraine. The US had just finished helping far right fascists topple the government. Suddenly Biden’s crackhead son is getting lucrative positions at a corrupt Ukrainian energy company. The same has allegedly happened in China. — NOS4A2

If you're suggesting a criminal investigation is warranted, then you need to explain what crime Hunter or Joe has committed. Or is it that you're just hoping there's a fishing expedition to try and stir up some political dirt?

mblings from Ukraine. Leaked calls between Quid Pro Joe and former Ukrainian president Poroshenko have been leaked, giving ammunition to the Biden/Ukraine corruption narrative. Also featured is John Kerry.

Ukrainian president Zelensky said a probe into the call is begin — NOS4A2

OMG! Does this mean Joe Biden threatened to held up aid to Ukraine if Poroshenko wouldn't fire the corrupt Shokin? I'm shocked!

...shocked because we already knew this occurred, and that it does not imply Biden did this for personal gain (unlike Trump's impeachable quid pro quo).

If a philosophy is "proven" does it not graduate into the field of science? — Outlander

We'll cross that bridge if we ever come to it.

If apealing to authority to support a position (presumably referencing a fact or at least a hypothesis vs. a random opinion) is not rubbish as in is "true", how exactly would doing the same thing to refute or throw into question an opposing idea be "false"?

It wouldn't. Dueling authorities results in no one's mind being changed. Not that minds get changed very often.

I think I've more or less dealt with this, justified suspicion is not enough to refute the claim, but it is enough to dismiss the appeal to authority and if that is all the claim is based on, the claim itself as anything other than bare assertion. In other words, you're back to square one, how do we settle the claim? In the absence of direct methods to do this (in the case of scientific claims), more reliable authorities will need to be sought — Baden

I think "direct methods" are the only hope of settling a disagreement - which means examining the basis of the expert opinion.

Yes, I think you missed something.
It is generally appropriate to appeal to authority to support one's position - it's a reasonable starting point. It becomes fallacious only when used to refute a contrary opinion (you must be wrong because expert X says so). The person arguing from authority then has the burden to dig into the expert's reasons for his opinion and to defend those.

Regarding genetic fallacies: there often are good reasons to be suspicious of a claim that comes from questionable sources (e.g. suppose I claim carbon dating is completely unreliable, and support this claim by linking to articles on the website of the Institute for Creation Research). But suspicion alone is not enough - you would need to dig into the basis for the claims.

I voted NO. Government is problematic as a form of government, but not necessarily as a way of life. My impression is that medieval monastic orders (like the Cistercians) were successful commune-istic societies. To make this work, the participants needed strong commitments to the society's ideals. A government can't impose such ideals.

You are born in a body without any senses. You are kept alive by artificial means, but you don't know it.

No external stimulus, no language, nothing. What do you think life would be like? — JoeyB

I imagine there would be no organized thoughts - it would be a life more similar to a lower life form.

Yes, the Dems fucked over the best candidate (for a second time) and nominated the worst — Baden

I have a problem with anthropomorphizing "the Dems". Biden is the nominee because that's where the process led. Was there something unfair about the process that you'd like to have changed, or is it just that you are unhappy with the result of the process?

Since we’re spouting conspiracy theories, maybe big pharma doesn’t like hydroxycloroquine because it’s super cheap and has been in use for decades. Many doctors from Gilead were a part of the NIH panel that advised against hydroxycloroquine in favor of Gilead’s expensive drug Remdesivir. Coincidence? — NOS4A2

Jeez, Trump has screwed with your mind. Remdesivir is a broad-spectrum anti-viral medicine. Hydroxychloroquine is not. If the latter turns out to be effective, it would be a surprising coincidence. If remdesiver is effective, it shouldn't be all that surprising.

Hydroxychloroquine may have SOME antiviral effects, but it also acts as an anti-inflammatory. Anti-inflammatory medicines are contra-indicated for COVID-19 because they suppress the immune system, which is a bad idea. That's why we're told to avoid anti-inflammatory medicine if we have COVID-19 - take Tylenol, not ibuprophen or aspirin. That's why it's unclear if the positives outweigh the negatives. That said, I'm perfectly happy to let Trump try it out. We've got absolutely nothing to lose.

Piddle around with the words all you want. — NOS4A2

My "piddling" entails using words consistently. You should try it.

The Obama administration not only used Russian-sourced, DNC gossip to justify spying on the Trump campaign—American citizens—they used the state apparatus to do so. One of the differences between Obamagate and Watergate is the Nixon campaign didn’t have the technology and access to intrusive data collection, so they had to physically break in to access their opponent’s documents and put bugs on their phones. — NOS4A2

It's an artful construction to refer to "the Obama administration" in this way. In one sense, everything the intelligence community did during Obama's Presidency can be attributed to "the Obama Administration." However, this doesn't imply Obama was directing the activities. That's the sort of construction Trump likes to use when talking about Obama, but of course - he never applies it to himself.

Not Even the People Ranting About “Obamagate” Know What It Is -

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/trump-tweet-obamagate-rand-paul-richard-grenell.html

Our little forum being a microcosm lol. — StreetlightX

From the article, in response to a question "what's the crime?":

“You know what the crime is,” the president responded. “The crime is very obvious to everybody. All you have to do is read the newspapers, except yours.” — Trump

This is so very much like the Emperor's new clothes. Only Trump suck-ups see the invisible crime.

t’s not out of the question to suspect that the most powerful man in the universe is privy to more information than you or I. — NOS4A2

LOL! You've pretended you hadn't drunk the Trump Kool-aid, and were merely being pragmatic. You're worse than the people you hypocritically criticize, because you give credibility to a man who's been shown to have been non-factual over 18,000 times during his Presidency.

Yes, you guys are over-sensitive to whatever phrases the media sensationalizes for you, and utterly forgetful or blind to anything else he says. I am not. — NOS4A2

You're confusing me with someone else. I just notice that he tells a great many untruths, largely from stupidity and arrogance. Given that he says so many falsehoods, it seems nuts to attach any credibility to anything he says. You did, and that seems nuts.

But you displayed sensitivity to Trump's reference to "Obamagate". Sensitivity is not just negative.

I have wondered how Christians rationalized Jesus' last words --- "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Jesus probably didn't say that. That statement is taken from Psalms 22:1.

Trump knows something. More info soon? — NOS4A2

I had come around to accepting the fact that you didn't care what Trump says because you like what he does. But when you start taking his words seriously, and repeating it, it belies that. Are you also a birther?

Lying to ensure you get a cushy job is about his current character and fitness for the job as a judge. I would've hoped there's not that much subjectivity involved about that. That's irrespective of making a judgment call on whether he raped that woman or not. — Benkei

I'm not sure what you're referring to, but at the time - I opposed Kavanaugh's nomination. I thought Blasey-Ford's allegations were credible - both because she was credible and because it pertained to plausible antics for a teen-age boy of privilege. By all accounts that I'm familiar with, he outgrew it (except for his affection for beer) and became a respected judge with a commendable life. I wouldn't hold the alleged teen-age assault against him, just his lies, lack of empathy, and the way he reacted - which didn't seem very judicial to me. Biden's case is a bit different - he and the alleged victim were adults, so it's not the antics of an immature teen, and there's no apparent pattern of such behavior - so I lean toward thinking that he didn't do it. I can't claim I'm completely objective, but I don't think anyone can. I expect that if a poll were taken, Democrats would tend to think Kavanaugh was guilty and Biden innocent, and Republicans would tend to think the exact opposite.

It's true that the charges should not be treated the same. There is more corroborative evidence in Biden's case than there was with Kavanaugh's. — StreetlightX

Biden's accuser publicly praised him after the alleged event. That's odd behavior for someone who is the victim of sexual assault. Nevertheless, I think it's possible he did it, but it's also possible she exaggerated at the time. How does one treat possibilities like this? I think it will inevitably boil down to one's judgment of the man's character. The same thing goes for Kavanaugh. Character judgment is subjective, and this juxtaposition demonstrates that. People can vote against Biden for this, if they judge it that way. Others are free to judge it differently. There's no objectively correct judgment.

“believe all women”. The fuck I will. I dont believe anybody all the time. Human beings are treacherous, dangerous animals. — DingoJones

Rather: Investigate all claims corroborated by physical, circumstantial & non-hearsay testimonial evidence. — 180 Proof

I tnink we agree that something more is needed than an accusation. Some investigation is needed just to see if there's corroboration.

Kavanaugh and Biden are a good pair of cases to compare. There are some differences between the cases, but are the differences sufficient to consider only one exonerated?

That consideration would apply to both sides, many dems are ignoring Bidens sexual misconduct and focusing on Trumps. Biden being the creep/sexual misconduct type is more believable based on what ive seen and heard to be honest. — DingoJones

It's hypocritical to apply a double standard, and
the potential is there for Dems, but it's more than potential for any Trump supporter who blasts Biden.

Politics aside, it would be nice if we could consider how we should respond to such accusations. I think accusations should be taken seriously, but accusations should not become lethal weapons.

don’t care what republicans think, frankly. In fact the rearranging of republican politics was one of the greatest things of a Trumpian takeover. — NOS4A2

You had said you hoped the "political theater" was being "destroyed in the wake of Trump's presence". All I did was show that's not happening.

I think questionable statements are commonplace outside of the public relations politics we’ve all grown accustomed to. I remember a time when a weird scream would ruin a politician’s electability. That form of political theater is, I hope, destroyed in the wake of Trump’s presence. — NOS4A2

Consider that lots of Republicans give Trump a pass on his numerous instances of sexual misconduct but still go after Biden's. Many do the same with gaffs: Trump's gaffs are OK because they like what he's doing, but then they still jump on Biden's. So I don't think that Republican's acceptance of Trump's negatives (present company excepted) will have any bearing on the future. To quote Stephen Tyler: "Dream On!"

I understand why you’d feel that way and agree that his style may “impassion opposition”. The issue I have is I’m not sure that this differs much from routine snobbery. — NOS4A2

It is routine for the opposition to react to a President's questionable statements. What isn't routine is the number of questionable statements.

understand that some of his words may be off-putting and offensive to others, yes. But I think offensiveness is a common trait among human beings. Most people, right left, of all races and creeds, cannot stand political correctness. So who is more out of touch? History is replete with people who say offensive things. I don’t think they’re evil. Often they are necessary. — NOS4A2

Here's what I infer from Trump's words:

His top priority is his own self-interest. He's arrogant to the point of narsiccism, rude, insensitive, never accepts that he's wrong, he has poor judgment, too often trusting his ill-informed gut over expert opinion, easily duped, he lies frequently - but more often he's just displaying ignorance, he is overly prone to confirmation bias (e.g. accepts fake news that conforms to his biases), fails to take responsibility for his own words and actions. He is divisive.

Can you understand why I'd feel this way? You often challenge others to convince you YOU'RE wrong. Can you convince me I'm wrong?

I get that Trump's base of supporters don't care about the above because he's pushing for things they like, but this "style" is more apt to impassion opposition to him than to win people over. Do you agree or disagree? Even if you disagree now, if he loses - won't that imply I'm right?

FI you can work from home, theres a good chance yours is a bullshit job. — Banno

Im retired but my erstwhile career was in IT. I could do my job just as well from home as when i the office. By your estimation, mine was a bullshit job. I beg to differ.

I try not to confuse poor speaking with poor action, and I cannot see why anyone would unless one was fooling himself through blind hatred. But I am open to being convinced otherwise. If, as you say, his full-time job is to hurt others, perhaps you can provide some examples of who he has hurt and how he has done so? — NOS4A2

I accept your view about Trump's words being irrelevant to you, but do you understand that his words are extremely off-putting and sometimes offensive to others? Even though you don't care what he says, don't you think it's fair to judge his character based on the things he says?

IMO, If he does not get reelected, it will be because of these things. Do you agree?

Third, therefore the mostly likely scenario is that there has always been something. Debating what that something is (God, some supernatural entity that isn't God, some fundamental particle etc.) is the subject for a different thread, but it seems pretty clear that at rock bottom, there must be something that exists as a metaphysical necessity. — Michael Nelson

An a posteriori necessity, right?

Ultimately though, what transpired was openness to plausibility of a something from nothing scenario over that of an eternal thing, or a little of both, maybe.

Thus begins somewhat of an inquiry as to what exactly is meant by nothingness, and the nature thereof. — CorneliusCoburn

Something cannot come from nothing. Something in the classical world of material objects (as were perceived them) can come from a quantum system that lacks such objects.

That is the so-called "something from nothing" scenario that have been postulated by some physicists, like Laurence Krauss, Alexander Vilenkin, and Sean Carroll.

I think the idea that he is suggesting injecting bleach into people, or something like this, is an uncharitable, not to mention inaccurate, interpretation of what he was saying — Wolfman

I agree. But despite our goodwill toward Trump on this matter, he reacts to the unfair reporting by lying, claiming he was being sarcastic.

No, he wasn't recommending people ingest bleach. He was making a naive extrapolation from what he had just heard about the effectiveness of various methods of killing the virus on surfaces. But he just can't bring himself to admitting that, so he has to lie.

I'm convinced the gross level of presidential maladminstration is even greater than these cocktail napkin figures suggest. The Covidiot-in-Chief has been pushing dangerous drugs unproven for Covid-19 treatment for about a month and now suggests injecting disinfectants into Covid-19 patients to "clean" them inside out. As if he doesn't have enough blood on his little hands already ... :shade: — 180 Proof

Trump says some extremely stupid things, but its less clear that any of his actions or inactions have caused preventable harm.

It's easy, with hindsight, to say actions should have been taken earlier, but we'd need to judge that based on the conditions, and state of available knowledge, at the time.

I'm not a Trump apologist, but I do think we should judge the facts fairly. IMO, the majority of the untruths he mouths are the result of extreme stupidity, not duplicity. Fortunately, there are smart people doing the real work here (like Dr. Faucci). Trump is nothing more than an idiotic pundit.

Today our illustrious leader proposed the following remedies:

“Supposing we hit the body with a tremendous ultra violet or just very powerful light. And I think you said that hasn’t been checked but you are going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you could do either through the skin or in some other way. I think you said that you are going to test that, too. And then I saw the disinfectant, where knocks it out in one minute, and is there a way we could do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning. As you see it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that.”

Is it wrong of me to wish he would try these things on himself?

I think restricting immigration during the pandemic is reasonable. Anything that reduces person to person contact is good. On the other hand, praising protest gatherings is a bad idea

Trump has said lots of stupid things. Thank goodness the deep state is doing many good things, in spite of him.

"1" has the superficial grammar of a noun, but this is misleading.

Rather "1" is to be understood through its role in the process of counting. It is understood in learning how to count, not in pointing to individuals. — Banno

"1" refers to an abstraction , as do all natural numbers.

Consider the abstraction, "3" . Three-ness is a property that is held by some states of affairs: those consisting of 3 objects.

"+1" is a successor relation that holds between two consecutive natural numbers. In the real world, this maps to a relation between states of affairs. For example it's a relation between a collection of 3 apples and a collection of 4 apples.