How many participants in this thread seek the truth rather than a chance to express their pre-manufactured opinions in the pithiest way possible? — frank

I don't think these are alternatives. I'm not sure about others, but I tend to think my opinions are true, and when I stop thinking they are, I change them. This is surely how a committee or a thread should function, that we express our opinions and test them against each other, being open to persuasion. The question is whether one is open to persuasion, not whether one has an opinion.

Here's a curiosity. Because it's an all male committee, you get a female, an expert in prosecuting sex crimes to interview the victim. Just the person to get to the truth. But then you don't allow her to question the suspect. It's almost as if the woman is the suspect from the beginning.

This being the justice committee, you might think that they would agree about the suitability of such an expert to ask the right questions, but the partisanship (that is to say the injustice) is so entrenched that this woman is seen as herself partisan so that if she questions the woman on behalf of one side, she cannot question the man on behalf of the other.

Alas, the whole notion of justice is so far betrayed by both sides, that they might as well dissolve the committee and the supreme court both. Justice counts for nothing, and nobody believes in it.

Attractive to you. — Ram

Again you want to tell me about me, instead of telling me about you.

Why so negative? This is an excessively long post, and the vast majority of it is a denigration of others rather than an explanation of your own position.

If atheism conforms to your desires, perhaps you won't want to leave atheism- so as not to leave desires. I hope you are not like an animal. The "Enlightenment" is so "enlightened" I might get banned if I think outside its perspective, as having an alternate view is deemed unacceptable by its guardians. — Ram

I too am unenlightened. But you might well get banned if you go on in this way. Stop telling us how awful we are or are going to be, as if you were seeking virtual martyrdom at the hands of the terrible atheists, and tell us what you have that is better. My background is more Christian, and my interest has turned more to Buddhism, so I know relatively little about Islam. But you are not making it very attractive at the moment.

Dude you have five discussions started in 7 days. Curb your enthusiasm a bit, and spend more time thinking and reading. Everyone argues for their views here, and you are doing that too. Perhaps you are overdoing it a bit. The forum is run by mere mortals, who are not perfect judges, but within the bounds of human imperfection, it seems to me that your views are well represented here on the front page. If you bombard us with new threads every day, it becomes tiresome. Your position is a minority one here, so you need to express yourself carefully and responsively rather than make hasty accusations like this.

There is no obligation for the site to be even-handed; some us are religious, and some are dismissive of religion, and we manage to allow that conflict to be aired and also to leave room for other discussions, by showing self-restraint and tolerance as best we can, along with honesty and clarity.

So the almost tears of Kavanaugh as he recounted his totally un-traumatic youth seemed rather less convincing than his anger at 'the conspiracy'. Comparing his responses with Ford, he was more definitive in his universal denials (of ever forgetting anything for example) than I felt he had a credible right to be, and and evasive to the point, on more than one occasion of turning questions back on his questioner, which is an aggressive, uncooperative, rhetorical trick. He did not seem to understand the difference between a hearing and an investigation, which you would think a judge would be clear about. and simply blustered and refused to answer some questions. Ford, by contrast, did her best to answer every question without evasion or trickery, and seemed to have a much clearer grasp of the sort of detail the FBI could produce that would shed light on the matter. All in all I think she would make a much better supreme court judge.

One thing that makes her a most convincing witness to me is the way she is most upset, not with the awkward questions, but with the expressions of support and belief. Against those she has no defence, because nothing is required of her.

Um, this has nothing to do with the words of mine you are responding to, but uh, ok, thanks for sharing. — Jake

That's bollocks too. An accusation levelled at a person of wealth power and influence is much more believable than one levelled at a nobody, because they are far less likely to advantage the accuser, and far more likely to seriously disadvantage them. You claimed the opposite and you are entirely wrong.

If that's objectionable to any reader, the solution is simple, don't read my posts. — Jake

Yes, I think I'll take your advice.

If these claims were being leveled against me, a total nobody, they would have far more credibility because nobody is going to get rich, famous, or obtain political advantage by accusing me. Thus, all those agendas removed, a search for justice becomes the leading theory. — Jake

Yeah, but actually that's bollocks. Whistleblowers of all sorts nearly always pay a huge price, and the higher up the hierarchy their complaint is directed the more they are discredited penalised and so on. One typically becomes unemployable as soon as one makes this sort of complaint, and the success rate in terms of gaining any tangible advantage is minuscule.

Perhaps a good guideline is what the now deceased veteran told: just never forget basic humanity...in any situation. Hence the judge doesn't have to declare the law wrong in public, he gives just a light sentence or no punishment at all. — ssu

such textual passages do not define (or install) moral agency, but of course may (or may not) exemplify morals like other stories. — jorndoe

So what it seems to come to is that one cannot evade personal responsibility for one's acts. One can use law, scripture, or the analects of Jerry the Jerk to support or defend the righteousness of one's acts, but one remains entirely responsible for them. If you go around stoning adulterers, or gassing Jews, or imprisoning homosexuals, or enslaving refugees, it's still your responsibility even if The Pope or Lord Ganesh told you to explicitly.

But then, we do not have an argument when someone says:

Someone: Because homosexuality is a sin. — jorndoe

And when they are arrested for - whatever - they likely will not say it is not their fault, because the Bible said, they will claim the responsibility as a virtue, because the Bible said.

One learns how to talk. Necessarily, one comes to know one's first language without a language.

Or at the very least, one's first few words.

little evidence. — Jake

Three separate accounts, two notorious fraternity memberships maybe doesn't add up to a conviction, but neither does it subtract down to an unsupported claim.

and for simply being denied a promotion (or equivalent) a lower level yet — Baden

One might even be inclined to consider judgement based on the company one keeps...

https://yaledailynews.com/blog/2018/09/20/a-flag-of-underwear-photo-from-kavanaughs-time-shows-dke-hijinks/

The good christian virgin must have come in for a bit of ribbing from his Frat-bros, eh?

is too much to ask — StreetlightX

Unfortunately, it might well be.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/24/rape-sexual-assault-ban-frats?CMP=fb_gu

Related: — jorndoe

I'm afraid I've lost track of what you want to say at this point. You seem to be referring me to the aphorisms of the great and the good at this point, and yet you started out claiming that referring to the sayings of Jesus or Moses was illegitimate.

Streetlight has a particularly keen interest in my moderation — Marcus de Brun

Think of @StreetlightX as the Devil, tasked to afflict you with boils, and so on. It's all part of the character-building plan.

the place has gone to pot. :( Guide us. — Baden

Stick to Lebanese and Thai sticks for a lighter brighter high.

Who if anyone is moderating the moderators? — Marcus de Brun

That would be me. Have I missed something?

I'm just trying to strip away the illusion that talking will accomplish anything other than casual nerd entertainment. If that is seen and accepted, I have no further complaints. — Jake

If it were seen and accepted, then something other than casual entertainment would have been accomplished. Thus your effort is doomed to failure, even if it succeeds. This only demonstrates that your talk is fruitless, not that all talk is fruitless.

Philosophy is God.

Why is it that accusations come out right before someone controversial is about to be elected or appointed? — Marchesk

I think this might answer your question, if it is a genuine question rather than a rhetorical expression of wilful incredulity.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/sep/24/christine-blasey-ford-brave-woman-brett-kavanaugh?CMP=fb_gu

So, the judge comes home... — jorndoe

This story doesn't answer. It is like The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas.
Father comes home after a tiresome day as Concentration Camp Commandant and is the decent family man.

Judges have to follow the law, and not their conscience, but their function as judges is the epitome of morality in action.

TO maintain one's integrity one must continue to be willing to act against the instructions of the organisation at the point where they stretch one's own moral view too far. — Banno

So how far is too far? There seems to be a weighing required of the value of an orderly society as against the cost imposed on others in terms of justice. Sometimes the law is an ass, but perhaps one can follow it and live with one's conscience, and sometimes the law is a monster and one cannot, or rather one all too often can, but ought not. Because when was the last time a judge said 'this law is so wrong, I refuse to administer it'?

Yet it is the judge that has to decide for others where the line should have been. 'The Commandant has no defence', he declares, citing another rule-book, written after the event.

Following printed instructions while assembling an IKEA table won't land you in Nuremberg. — SophistiCat

Well, until Ikea start selling lampshades made from human skin...

But if, like you imply, no one asks for mercy if they don't believe, it seems like belief is a prerequisite to repentance, so the problem is still one's beliefs. But maybe I'm not understanding correctly? — Empedocles

Yes, that is the problem, but it is not a matter of justice. You are justly condemned. Yet it seems to me that one can repent with or without belief. Not being a christian myself, I defer to the pope on this:-

Yes indeed. They are abrogating their moral duty to the letter of the law. Which makes them less human, allegedly. "The law says I must order this execution..." - the Nuremberg defence. In common parlance the eternal cry of the jobsworth, "I was only doing my job." You want to take the high moral ground over the religionist, at least in this particular, you got to be an anarchist.

The problem is, this unbeatable strategy is like the Anti-game. It sucks the potential for profit from the game, and by corrupting the minds of the players it is secretly sucking the life out of our society. — Yadoula

My understanding is that poker is a zero sum game, with an element of chance. In that case, the only way to profit (luck aside) is to play with others who do not have an optimised strategy. So the unbeatable strategy inevitably sucks the profit from the game if everyone applies it.

Beyond that, I understand that the unbeatable strategy involves being unpredictable, and thus bluff.

Application of game theory to society at large is extremely problematic though, because to play a game is already to have agreed the rules. An unbeatable strategy would be not to bother with the cards, but simply to shoot the other players and take their money. But this is against the rules, and the rules are what constitute the game which is theorised. The game of society is a game of making and unmaking the rules of the game, such that the unbeatable strategy can become a losing strategy by a simple change of the law. Slap a big tax on gambling and poker becomes a negative sum game.

I wrote something about game theory ages ago, which you might like to look at.

Referral to something (or someone) else, is to forfeit being considered a moral agent, and merely makes the referrer less human. — jorndoe

Does this apply to judges who refer to statute, convention, constitution, case law, etc?

2-Your eternal salvation or damnation depends on your religious beliefs. — Empedocles

That doesn't sound right to me. The way I heard it your salvation depends on not sinning. Justice is served when the guilty are damned, and that's everyone. It is not a matter of justice that anyone is saved, but of mercy, which one may ask for, but cannot demand as a right, even if it is afforded to another. Unfortunately, lacking belief, one does not ask. But perhaps it is afforded some without asking, I don't know - the pope seems to think so.

We are aware of significant evidence of multiple house parties...during which Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge and others would participate in the targeting of women with alcohol/drugs in order to allow a ‘train’ of men to subsequently gang rape them.

That's a bit serious, isn't it? Not entirely beyond the bounds of credibility though, social facilitation, drugs, and hormones in a combination that is not unknown in colleges, along with an old-fashioned attitude to women that is possibly more inclined to being conserved by conservatives. The good old days when men were men and women were resources to be protected and/or exploited. My daughter needs protecting, but your daughter is quite good looking and no better than she ought to be. Justice.

What should I suspect of it? — Posty McPostface

Well, everything and nothing. Generally, reading is one of the safest forms of medication. But generally every psychology is in the business of messing with your head, and the more effective it is, the more dangerous it is, simply because power corrupts. But the cult is gone, and only the book remains

You mean to say that depression is non-dysphoric? Doesn't that mean they have learned to cope with it? — Posty McPostface

I think it is fairly common to think that depression is a coping strategy itself. Feelings one cannot cope with are depressed, because one can cope with depression. Then there are the pills that numb the numbness... Coping is the reasonable insanity that most everyone suffers from. What would it be like not to cope?

What do you think about dreams as a return to the belly of a pregnant mother? It sounds silly, but it seems to point that way. — Posty McPostface

I used to have a couple of recurring dreams; one of being in a field, and then finding I could not escape and a great pressure crushing me, the other of having to go down a passage to the living-room, and there being some un-nameable monster to get past. The moment I realised they were birth-memories, they stopped completely. I'm not certain, but I think that actual womb memories themselves are more or less contentless in most cases because there is no contrast; 'you don't know what you got 'til it's gone'. So one does not begin at the beginning, but only at the end of the beginning.

Here is a cautionary tale for budding therapists in particular, and desperate clients in general. A quick skim will tell you why I don't generally recommend what I am about to recommend.

If you read my posts in any detail, you will know that I am very critical of psychology in general and think of it more as a branch of religion than of science. And this was a cult. Primal therapy was already a cult, and this was born of it. But cults function by means of effective psychological techniques.

And the techniques are described in this book. For me, it was a transformative book; just reading the accounts of sessions and the theory of them took my life in a different direction.

Dreams are amazing to me because they are the self-generated content of the mind. Nothing is more original or authentic than a dream. — Posty McPostface

Just as a tease, they have the notion of 'reasonable insanity'.

Depression is amazing to me because it is the self-generated content of the mind. Nothing is more unoriginal or inauthentic.

Yes. Whenever I make a decision, it is necessarily on the basis that what I decide is undecided until I decide. At the same time, It is necessarily on the basis that my decision acts deterministically. It's not a matter of defining a way out, but of living the paradox. These words will change you in ways you cannot control - or you may ignore them.


And, I meant and.

I hope he finds somewhere where he is appropriately understood. — Baden

I think he just did.

I'd have put all this in the banning thread if it had been open already, worth moving ...?

It didn't come as a total shock to me, and my sadness at the loss is bearable.

Ho hum. It might be interesting to discuss Fanon sometime, but that was a very odd combination: Fanon the liberation psychoanalyst and Heidegger the Nazi. Kind of like the current association of Zionism with the far right. Interesting times... I would offer a link, but the thread in question along with the classic cry bully who posted it presumably have suffered the final solution.

people who cheat have a reason, — Blue Lux

Indeed they do. Perhaps I want to spare my partner the sad and humiliating truth that I have come to find her unexciting, if not repulsive. Perhaps she finds me so, and we have had no physical relations for years. Perhaps apart from this, we get on well and are happy together. Perhaps both of us are cheaters sparing each other's feelings as best we can.

Life sometimes has no solution. And why should it have a solution? — Blue Lux

Perhaps the solution is already in place, and the problem is the moralist who finds it their duty to tell the truth and impose it on us. Relationships are more complicated than a mere contract of exclusivity - who knows, there might even be children to consider. Which is why I place the emphasis on caring for the people, both parties, as the condition for intervening in such a situation. If we were talking of serious abuse, I would take a different line.

Having said that, there is the case in which an honest partner is being betrayed on a daily basis and if and when they do find out, their whole life is devalued in their own eyes, and the friend who has known and said nothing is a party to the betrayal. So it is definitely something worth bringing to a philosophy forum to get the wisdom of the dudes on.

I would be appreciative — Hanover

The guilty always appreciate — Hanover

This. I identify with innocence. That is rationalisation.

I can say that I would be appreciative of an anonymous note if I were being cheated on and understanding of the anonymous nature of it, considering the messenger is an innocent party who just happens to have bad news to deliver. — Hanover

Yes I dare say you would. Now what would you appreciate if you were cheating?

I reason, you rationalise, they are very naughty. If you wind back a way, you will see that I advocate action and honesty, on the basis that you actually care. What I'm arguing against is acting with the protection of anonymity and not taking responsibility for the consequences.