I think the equality of law is such that it should allow everybody to be whatever they want. But it should not allow anyone to be under another's 'sword'. — BrianW

Well, I assume you think it is ok that murders and thieves are 'under another's sword'?

If there is government, we are all under someone's sword (and without government, might makes right so I guess we would still be 'under someone's sword'). If it is democracy, there is the tyranny of the majority. A bill of rights can reduce this "tyranny", but not eliminate it. 'Society' does NOT want criminals treated equally, and 'society' is coming around to the idea that bigots should be treated as criminals.

I can't read. It bores me. I lose my interest, I can't keep my attention focused. — god must be atheist

Just because you are not reading War & Peace doesn't mean you are not a reader. Your posts here suggest that, at least most of the time (hehe), you read and understood other posts in the thread you are responding to.

I used to call myself a non-reader. Then I started paying attention to all the short readings I do (this website, newspapers, magazines, wikipedia, email, etc) and I probably average an hour or two per day (to be fair, most of that time is probably spent proofreading my own posts :grimace:).

You can call me dumb — Shushi

I can, but I don't know why I would. You seem pretty bright. Most libertarians are smart people, they just seem trapped in partially justified dogma.

but he's referring to how there is a pattern of tax cuts and greater returns, although that isn't is main argument, as much to dispel the argument that those who label supply side as "trickle down" economics make, and look at several periods that follow this trend of a two fold growth in the economy, that includes more wealth generated back to the government, as well as more wealth to the citizens or those who are part of the demand side, essentially supply side is a two fold wealth generator, which even since the recession in 2007 was fixed partly because of the effectiveness of supply side, which isn't the only factor, but it has a successful and self evident track record which doesn't seem unreasonable from his end. But yeah his arguments go more than just 2012, all the way back throughout its history. — Shushi

If there was clear data supporting a position then economics would be easy...and we wouldn't need opinions. So when someone presents economic data as ENTIRELY supporting a certain view, I question their academic integrity (or their intelligence, but notice Sowell is unquestionably intelligent, so he must be championing incomplete data on purpose).

Just to make sure we're in the same page, let me define some terms properly. — Shushi

Good idea :smile:

Essentially supply side economics is the idea that if producers are given back their money, they're going to produce new and better products (improve quality and drive down prices through competition, and new technology and innovation [like Iphones and small computer become affordable and which is why this is an essential factor in order for Moore's Law to keep the same trend]), and that supply will generate its own demand, thus the economy will keep rolling and the cash will be flowing, unlike the strawmans that its going to trickle down slowly into the entire economy where the economy and innovation are stagnating. — Shushi

Your description of supply side econ fits my general idea...but this whole section seems to be trying to point at the 'fact' of supply side economics. It is a theory about what MIGHT be good for the economy, right?

This is different from a demand side economics which tries to focus the wealth to non producers who don't create new technology or innovation, meaning that funds stagnate because there isn't anything inherently innovative or incentive for funds and value to grow, I mean you can distribute the wealth to everyone but not everyone will multiply those funds, whereas entrepreneurs and producers will do more with those funds. — Shushi

Wouldn't demand-side proponents call this a strawman? All those drones that don't create stuff SPEND money. That is the point of demand side, I thought? While the innovators have just spent the last decade hording. They are not reinvesting into R & D. Just manipulating stock markets for personal gain.

And demand-side vs supply-side is the dogmatic stuff I am talking about. Surely there are infinite options other than just supply-side and demand-side (just by saying it could be some combination of the two creates infinite possibilities - let alone if we start looking at economic models beyond capitalism). Is anything in economics that simple?

If lowering taxes for the rich, directly and consistently worked in the way you have described, there would be no argument. Unfortunately, if we look at the history of economics, NOTHING works consistently. Economists are finally coming around to the realization that THEY CAN'T PREDICT SHIT, because they don't have all the necessary information. And the 'necessary information' includes the emotional whims of every human...so it seems like we are not that close to making predictive economics more science than philosophy.

I mean you can distribute the wealth to everyone but not everyone will multiply those funds, whereas entrepreneurs and producers will do more with those funds. — Shushi

I am happy to concede that we have not learned a better way to maximize GDP than laissez-faire capitalism. But we have reached a point where the GDP of industrialized nations is enough that every citizen could live well (not in poverty)...and yet they don't. So, we no longer need to worry about raising the GDP, but finding a way for that higher GDP to actually benefit the majority. So if we take measures that cause GDP growth to slow to 2% instead of 4% (a HUGE difference, especially when compounded over a few decades), it is worth it, if more people benefit from that 2% growth.

Surely, it can be acknowledged by now that charity will never be significant on a large scale. So if libertarians want to argue that the dumb and unmotivated should just be allowed to die in the streets, then that is fair and consistent. But if they act like unregulated capitalism actually benefits a majority of poor people, it is naive or disingenuous.

after the Reagan tax cuts in 81 — Shushi

Remember that Reagan then raised taxes in 1986, suggesting it did not work quite as hoped.

Supply side even works in europe which is why Denmark has been cutting its taxes too, — Shushi

This is the dogmatic thinking..."all tax cuts are good". How can we compare Denmark lowering its tax rate to 55% to the US? When they drop to 30% and their economy soars and their citizens are happy, then it matters relative to the US. As of now, I would just agree and say, "yeah! we should have the same taxes as denmark."

Oh, and @Virgo Avalytikh has a fairly busy thread where they have been defending libertarian ideas. People in that thread (Anarchy, State, and Market Failure) seem to know more than me, but more importantly, are willing to dive into the details; whereas I struggle to get past what I consider to be a few major flaws. Just thought you should check that one out, if you haven't already.

That there is no "little" discrimination in the fight against discrimination. — BrianW

This seems problematic. Wouldn't ANY law designed to end discrimination, discriminate in some way?

Reminds me of the libertarian argument for an unregulated free market...well, yes, if we assume people are rational, caring, and knowledgeable at all times, then that would work great.

Unfortunately, people are quite flawed and sometimes we may have to violate an ideal for the sake of pragmatism.

I feel quite confident that MLK Jr., would have approved of the majority of Civil Rights legislation, despite the fact that it discriminates against bigots.

Similarly, it makes perfect sense to be pro-tolerance but still be intolerant of intolerance (even though it may violate some 'ideal' of tolerance).

Taking these statements out of context separates them from their meaning and significance for those who utter them. — Possibility

These statements?:

I am "black" and proud.
I am "white" and proud.

I am tall and proud.
I am short and proud.

I am skinny/thin and proud.
I am fat and proud.

I am rich and proud.
I am poor and proud. — BrianW

Only one pair seems tied to race.

The original ‘pride’ statements are a response to assumptions that one should feel inferior for being ‘black’, for instance. — Possibility

huh? what 'original pride statements' are being referred to?

When people come back with statements such as “I’m white and I’m proud” in a discourse where being ‘black’ has connotations of inferiority, it speaks of white supremacy. — Possibility

That seems true. Ok, ok. So you are just referring to the first pair of statements...Yes, I can agree that White Pride is a BIG problem while Black Pride is only a small problem (the small problem being that ALL pride is discriminatory in its implications). I guess to clarify further or I will get in trouble...White Pride is a big enough problem that society should takes steps (laws?) to discourage it; minority pride doesn't really harm people (but I would still count it as a problem, but more along the lines of how people being selfish is a problem).

I have now read more of the thread and found whoppers like this:

Therefore, it is unjust for "black" people to think they can use the n-word and deny the "white" people that same opportunity. If we know and believe the n-word to be derogatory, then it should be taboo for everybody. — BrianW

So I get that you were likely just pointing out that the OP is playing Jordan Peterson type games, but my words only engaged a specific argument - yes, all 'pride' is discriminatory (of course Nazi pride is more discriminatory than pride in being good at hopscotch, but they all discriminate).

My questioning of reverse racism should suggest I am on your side, but I get the sense I may be missing something...feel free to point me in the right direction.

Yes. Guidance counselors in schools across the country tell students to “shoot for the stars” implying that if they land the job of their dreams everything will fall into place for them mentally, emotionally, and spiritually. That’s what it seems like to me, anyways.

So, I guess the solution would be not to put so much stock in your occupation as a source of fulfillment. That goes against the American educational system’s propaganda, though.

The fact of the matter is that mental illness diagnosis is on the rise. However, this could be better diagnosing, more pressure from pharmaceutical companies, more actual mental illness due to alienation, or some combination of the aforementioned. — Noah Te Stroete

Well all of this sounds great (the opinion parts) and accurate (diagnosis on the rise, etc). I guess my initial disagreement was just being nitpicky (surprise, surprise).

Depends on their boss and how they treat their own workers, of course. — Noah Te Stroete

I was referring to how much they are paid - the only 'thanks' that ever matters to me.

Simple: I have defined ‘aggression’ in a particular way, in a way that is consonant with how the term is conventionally used in the libertarian tradition, and have argued that trespass does indeed constitute aggression on that definition. You may respond that you are defining ‘aggression’ in a different way, and that, on your definition, trespass is not aggression. To which I respond, ‘That’s fine’. I’m not claiming that trespass is aggression in the way you are defining it. I am claiming that trespass is aggression in the way I am defining it (and the way in which libertarians define it). I happily concede that, if I were defining ‘aggression’ in the way you are, I might be wrong. But since I’m not, I’m not. — Virgo Avalytikh

Gotcha. Let's see if I can try another approach:

Do you think the NAP is a perfect principle with no flaws, inconsistencies, ambiguity, or potential loopholes?

Do libertarians care whether property was originally acquired according to the NAP, or was that centuries ago, so it doesn't matter?

If a country takes land using aggression, do all of its citizens have the right to that newly acquired property?

What percent of owned land was acquired without aggression? (obviously this is not answerable, but I am suggesting that a significant percent of the 'owned' land on earth was acquired using aggression)

Another example is a manager, a thankless job. — Noah Te Stroete

Well, surely, they are 'thanked' a good deal more than those who are managed?

I think it is the lack of meaningful purpose and lack of lasting accomplishment and being so far removed from the necessities of life that results in there being so few mentally healthy people these days. — Noah Te Stroete

First off, is there evidence that people are mentally unhealthy at higher rates than in the past? I am not saying there is not, but it seems very complicated.

I tend to disagree with the general thesis (disagree may be too strong...question its applicability?); but more importantly, if you are right, what is the solution? Go back to living off the land?

If we gave people less education (or a more limited scope), wouldn't that solve your problem as uneducated people generally don't ask about things like 'purpose'?

What if we just have a lot of parades where we celebrate all the individual 'cogs' in society. Wouldn't this add value to their work and make them feel useful?

I have seen this, 'people feel detached as they never see the finished product' argument before, but I never really saw the point of it.

Shouldn't people just learn to find value and purpose OUTSIDE OF WORK? Isn't the attachment of my personal self-worth to my job the REAL mental health problem?

Reverse racism is a thing... right? — BrianW

what would that look like? (everyone thinks all races are equal? everyone acknowledges 'race' is not a thing? the dominant cultural group being looked down on? or did you mean 'the belief that white people suck'?) Sounds like de-evolving...makes sense as a concept, but upon closer inspection, not a real thing (and semantically confusing).

Anyways, aren't the above statements the kind of nonsense that enable discrimination? — BrianW

you listed 'pride' statements, I just realized this quote might be confusing out of context.

Many different culture view 'pride' differently. But generally, I agree that 'pride' would not typically imply that all people are equal...and beyond that it implies that a certain characteristic (whatever one is proud of) is 'right' and anyone who possesses said trait is 'better'.

If that pride is the consequence of possessing a "thing", doesn't that mean the lack of that "thing" is a cause for shame? Otherwise, we would all just be proud, period. — BrianW

Seems right to me :smile:

Sowell, T. (2012). Trickle-down theory and tax cuts for the rich. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution\
Press, Stanford University, (pp. 13). — Shushi

Wait, so in 2012, just as the Obama administration is pulling the country out of one of our biggest recessions ever...Sowell is going to point to increased tax revenue generated by tax cuts in the early 2000s? Great it worked for 3 years, then what happened in 2007?

I think economics is far more complicated than this and operates in long cycles with many questionable factors being significant, but if Sowell wants to over-simplify, I can make him LOOK dumb. Unquestionably, Thomas Sowell is not dumb. But I stopped reading his work years ago...once he proved to me he was smart enough that he had to be cherry-picking his examples while ignoring obvious counters...just so he could reach people who were not smart enough (or interested enough more likely) to look it up.

There's a salient difference between theft and murder. In the case of the former, some form of compensation, or even restitution, is possible. In the case of the latter, it's plainly not. — Constrained Maximizer

For thousands of years revenge was compensation. The concept has rightly been mostly rejected in modern society, but there are all sorts of things that one whose loved one was killed might consider 'compensation'. You are thinking direct, like for like, compensation. That doesn't need to be the only type.

If my grandfather was a murderer, I may not justifiably lose my own life. — Constrained Maximizer

No but maybe the property you inherited can be given to the descendants of the person your grandpa killed. It doesn't entirely compensate, but it does compensate. Considering murder is worse than theft, shouldn't this be the minimal compensation in that example?

Regarding "aggressive marketing campaigns", I have to confess that I am having a hard time grasping just what in the world the argument is supposed to be. Yes, things can be colloquially described as "aggressive". No, that doesn't mean that they are aggressive in the philosophically relevant sense. One might as well accuse libertarians of illicitly "changing the language!" because the libertarian principle doesn't prohibit "passive-aggressive behavior" and doesn't compel us to be particularly kind to our fellows. — Constrained Maximizer

I just think they used poor judgement in their word choice. When I hear, non-aggression, I do not think non-violent except for self defense. And this semantic problem highlights libertarians blindness to other instances of aggression.

But this is a purely semantic observation, rather than bearing any real philosophical substance. — Virgo Avalytikh

how do our examples we have discussed NOT show that this semantic problem does indeed have philosophical implications? (I think trespassing is wholly non-violent - you think it is a definite example that violates the NAP - have you shown me I am wrong? or just pointed out that according to your definition, you are right?)

The NAP is a libertarian principle. If you want to know what it means, you go ad fontes. — Virgo Avalytikh

Fair enough. But libertarians use the term with people who are not libertarian and expect them to arrive at the same meaning.

But we are discussing libertarianism, so I have defined it as libertarians define it. — Virgo Avalytikh

And I am pointing out reasons why people who are not libertarian will not accept that definition (will not agree with the principle is perhaps more accurate). We are discussing the merits of libertarianism and most of the people in the discussion are not libertarian....if we were a bunch of libertarians hashing out the minutia of libertarianism then it would make sense to just throw that term around. But otherwise, the NAP is one of the main components of libertarianism that opponents of libertarianism disagree with (despite us all agreeing that not initiating violence is generally a good thing)...it is problematic to state it as a given.

It's your choice, your responsibility, to follow orders or not. There's no way I'd follow an order to kill anyone if I didn't think it was justified to kill them. And then that's on me, because it was my choice. — Terrapin Station

I agreed with this until I met enough humans. Do you really think most people have the clarity of thought (or ever actually pause to intentionally 'think') to live up to this standard? Doesn't history show a regular pattern of the masses being convinced to slaughter for their leaders? If I am killing for 'justice' and 'freedom' is it any different? How does one know if they are fighting 'for justice' vs 'for hitler'? I get this does not make your position wrong, but if the mass killings were unlikely (of course we cannot say for sure, but seems safe) to occur at the same level without hitler or stalin...then aren't they somewhat responsible? I do not believe in prison for the sake of punishment, but I do believe in separating the problematic people from society - in that sense Hitler and Stalin would go to jail - does it matter if I call it 'a crime'?

Don't you think there are some people (like us) that naturally WANT to NOT follow? Our independence of thought defines us. Not so with most people I know - they are defined by those around them and their 'achievements'.

The world we need is one in where people don't believe anything just because someone said it, don't automatically follow anyone's orders just because someone gave them, etc. — Terrapin Station

I think we just need the Avengers :smile: Your statement sounds simple and obvious. But my life experience has not led me to believe it is remotely possible. People WANT to believe. Something. Anything. And when someone comes along making big promises...they can't wait to jump on board.

I have not read the whole thread yet, so feel free to point me back to reading if I missed something...but I am worried my post will get REALLY long (it is already quite long compared to your posts), and I know you hate that :grimace:

First Virgo, thanks for arguing with me. I appreciate that you do not get ruffled and frustrated in these discussions...but I still don't agree :smile:

Because ‘ownership’ is not per se aggressive.
— Virgo Avalytikh

Haha. Because 'trespassing' is not per se aggressive? (I am just standing there). I get that that libertarians would respond: — ZhouBoTong

No, trespassing is aggressive, and prohibited under the NAP. Notice that ‘trespass’ presupposes property rights. I am trespassing on someone’s land because it is their land. If the land were unowned, or owned by me, it would not be trespass. This is actually rather a tidy illustration of what I have just argued. — Virgo Avalytikh

ok? I can play it that way too:

Because ‘ownership’ is not per se aggressive. — Virgo Avalytikh

No, ownership is aggressive, and prohibited under my understanding of the NAP (you use 'the NAP' like that means the same thing to everyone). Notice that 'ownership' presupposes property rights. Someone 'owns' the land, because there is a power that allows them to hold onto it. If land cannot be 'owned', then one cannot 'trespass'. This is actually a rather tidy illustration of what I have been arguing the whole time.

Because ‘ownership’ is not per se aggressive. — Virgo Avalytikh

Haha. Because 'trespassing' is not per se aggressive? (I am just standing there). I get that that libertarians would respond:

“‘Aggression’ is not a property which inheres in an action; it is a relation of an action to a specific (property) right. Consider something ostensibly aggressive, such as my punching you in the face. Does this constitute an act of ‘aggression’? That depends. Perhaps we have both signed up for a boxing match. Perhaps we are acting and this is part of the scene. Or consider something ostensibly innocuous, like simply standing. Is this aggression? Again, it depends. If I am standing in my own living room, then probably not. If I am trespassing in your living room, and have been asked to leave, then yes. To say of any particular action that it is ‘aggressive’ presupposes a background schema of rights. Therefore, rights are a precondition of aggression. Therefore, declaring a right of ownership in the first instance cannot be aggression. That is to put the cart before the horse.” — Virgo Avalytikh

one of my best friends is libertarian. I have had these arguments for dozens (hundreds) of hours. This paragraph above is just rhetoric (as is most of what I am saying of course).

I am not trying to say libertarians are wrong (I think they are, but so what), just questioning the certainty of their convictions.

I was talking about the purpose of science in the minds of many scientists and people, to them there is no need to think about science and about what scientists do and about where science is going, because to them it is on a path to Progress and Truth. — leo

Why are we only worried about 'science'? Doesn't every other field (that is non-artistic) fairly flippantly dismiss philosophy as well? And the more loose and and general the philosophy, the less they will be willing to engage. Questions like 'what is the meaning of life?' are sure to make people tune out (after they have given their 30 second answer anyway).

But I don't see how this is a problem at the individual level. If some scientist is studying the link between say, bipedalism and handedness (why do bipeds tend to have a dominant hand while quadrupeds show less preference), where does the philosophy of Progress and Truth come in?

I think you are correct to suggest that Science should remember philosophy (more accurately, acknowledge the truth of its existence - they sound like people claiming to have no beliefs or emotions). However, it seems strange to think it is a problem for most individual scientists doing their job (I am not even sure you are suggesting this, but it seems to be implied).

No, it is not justified. I have not used force against you, so when you use force against me, it is initiatory. Our grandparents are a red herring. — Virgo Avalytikh

I disagree. Your family/country/ancestors potentially make you culpable. I will try a libertarian perspective:

If my grandpa steals all your land then leaves it to me in his will, would you and the courts be the aggressors when you try to get your land back? I didn't do anything wrong?

Any chance we can take this beyond our opinions? I don't see how?

Is the protester an aggressor, or not? You describe him as 'peaceful', but if he is a trespasser then he is violating someone's rights and stands in violation of the NAP. The police officer may simply be protecting the rights of whoever owns the property on which the protester is trespassing. — Virgo Avalytikh

I disagree (how is the trespassing MORE aggressive than the ownership?).

Is there ANY chance that the phrase "initiatory use of violence" means the same thing to everyone? — ZhouBoTong

I am still leaning toward 'no'.

And nobody's gonna go to school today
She's going to make them stay at home
And daddy doesn't understand it
He always said she was as good as gold
And he can see no reason
'Cause there are no reasons
What reason do you need to be sure
Tell me why
I don't like Mondays
— Bob Geldof

about the 1979 Cleveland Elementary School shooting in San Diego. — unenlightened

Dang. And I thought that 'pumped up kicks' was the only mass shooting song that I enjoyed.

Also - Bob Geldof from The Wall? He was in Boomtown Rats? (I am pretty sure that is the band famous for this song) Guess we learn something everyday.

And already folks are blaming Trump, and blaming gun laws But there are no reasons, what reason do you need to be sure? The El Paso shooter put out a 'manifesto' of racial hate and fear, but I believe him even less than the reports that it is Trump. — unenlightened

As someone who enjoys some criticism of trump, I can only agree here. I was thinking this weekend watching the news..."wait, we are discussing motive?" I thought mass murder was a game that could only be played by the insane. I get that psychology is more complicated than that. However, 30% of this country STRONGLY supports trump, and I am not worried that those people are going to shoot up the place (I am worried they may end legal access to abortion or re-create Jim-Crow type laws, and of course just plain normalizing hatred).

Not sure on the viking connection or 1979. Surely the ramping up of these events over the last 2 decades suggests some current cultural component?

Aggressive marketing campaigns would not be considered as 'aggression' in the libertarian system. — Virgo Avalytikh

Well actually, of course they would. The overall definition of 'aggression' does not change just because libertarians have claimed one specific meaning. Even if we concede the libertarian meaning, the old definitions still apply when they are applicable.

And in world foreign policy, what counts as "initiatory use of violence"? If your grandpa killed my grandpa is my use of violence against you justified?

How about domestically? If I see a police officer tackle a peaceful protester (who refused to move off private property), and I beat up the police officer? I know you will count the refusal to move from private property as an act of aggression (but careful, because there is no violence in this example - unless you redefine violence as well), but what if I don't? Then the police are initiating violence.

Is there ANY chance that the phrase "initiatory use of violence" means the same thing to everyone?

I want the pure, unbridled truth. — NickP

I am worried this will stress you out more, but these thoughts actually relax me in these situations:

You only want the pure, unbridled truth in the field of philosophy? What about math? Astronomy? Biology? Physics? Engineering? Wouldn't a perfect understanding of ALL philosophy require a perfect understanding of ALL subjects?

I admire your intellect and ambition (I am lacking in both categories). Just relax a little :smile:

i would call it infantile to think all military personnel would continue to follow all orders from those appointed over them if they were given an op order to assault and detain innocent civilians (which is an unlawful order... most of the time). — Obscuration

If this is true for MOST armed service personnel (including the high ranking and highly trained), then problem solved - we don't need a massively armed citizenry. If nearly all military personnel just blindly follow orders, then armed citizenry can do no more than annoy and delay. Your example of a couple Afghans with an AK and a rope (no wonder Charlie Bronson always carried a rope) highlights this problem. Guerilla fighters that are extraordinarily out-gunned can use hit and run tactics, to ensure the large enemy suffers higher casualty rates...and hopefully this can lead to winning by attrition (even George Washington - whose arms were significantly more comparable to the British than an assault rifle vs a drone today - basically just had to keep his army alive until the British decided it was no longer worth their effort). But what would a war of attrition between the US government and its citizens look like?

It seems to me that it would mean the end of 'the grid' and along with it 'modern civilization'? Sure I can go hide in a cave in Montana. And if I get a good group of capable like minded individuals together, we might be able to make the US Government abandon their ground efforts in Montana...Hooray?!?! What do we win? The ability to live in an 1800s style community that has to run for the hills every time we hear one of those strange flying machines from the capitol?

Oh, and also, this type of insurgency only works against modern technology because the powerful nation values (or at least kowtows to the whims of its citizenry) the lives of non-combatants. Once that doesn't matter, the government can just wipe me and every other living thing in Montana off the map.

So, since guns barely help even in these extreme scenarios, and they seem quite problematic as a regular part of crowded, civilized, society; then it seems worth it to remove them...But like Bitter Crank said, it is not going to happen in America without a Civil War.

When you say, “I don’t know,” you are avoiding belief. Right? — Noah Te Stroete

Nope. I answer "I don't know" to knowledge questions. I answer "I don't think so" or "I don't believe so" to thought/opinion questions (to be fair, in a normal conversation 'think' and 'know' are interchangeable. But we are talking about belief in a philosophical setting and we get the added buffer of typing our responses so I can be extra careful about EXACTLY what I mean.)

All I can say is that one can experience things that do not seem natural. Interpretation of these experiences (such as thinking that people were drugging me) do not rise to the requirements of knowledge, but one can feel wonder or awe or Oneness while withholding judgment as to what the cause is. — Noah Te Stroete

This seems fair. But it also takes discussion/debate off the table. All we can do is wait for me to have an experience of wonder or awe that leads me to feel the "Oneness".

Thank you for your consideration. — Noah Te Stroete

So polite :grin: I will try to emulate the behavior, but I often get caught up in the argument and forget there is another human involved.

So, putting it another way let's say that when it comes to believing 'x', the alternative is to believe 'not-x'. There is no third alternative when it comes to believing. — Janus

I agree no third option, but "I believe 'not-x'" is a little specific (it doesn't seem to include 'a lack of belief in x'...or does it? For me, and this may be a bit of our problem, 'I believe 'not-x' requires knowledge of 'x' where as a lack of belief in 'x' automatically exists in absence of knowledge).

But there is an alternative to believing either 'x' or 'not-x' and that is to believe neither 'x' nor 'not-x'. If this sounds like you are still believing something, it is a false impression brought about by the way it is expressed 'I believe neither 'x' nor 'not-x'', but you are not believing anything. It is like saying 'I ate neither cheese nor fruit'; you are not eating anything that is cheese or fruit, nor necessarily anything else either. — Janus

I do not think what I wrote above refutes this. However, if I cherry pick a line out of context, it shows the semantic problem I am having:

but you are not believing anything. — Janus

Exactly. So the answer to do you believe 'x' can be simplified to 'no'...??? How could I believe 'x' if I do not believe anything?

I think this just shows we are both understanding the same words in SLIGHTLY different (but meaningful) ways. I count a lack of belief as 'not believing', where as you view 'not believing' as requiring intent...I think?

The example concerning Trump colluding I gave earlier explains this clearly, I think. I don't have any belief either way as to whether Trump colluded, because I don't have sufficient evidence to hold a belief either way. I hope that clears it up for you. — Janus

This helps (I think). Does this mean you think the question "Is there a god" is an empirical question with a definite answer? My understanding of history along with some understanding of the definitions of gods in varying religions means that I have to ask several clarifying questions before I can even begin to answer that question. The question itself is nonsense without A LOT of explanation as to what one means when they use the word 'god'.

Your Donald Trump example HAS an answer, so withholding judgement makes sense. Until meanings are clarified, "is there a god" does NOT have an answer...so withholding judgement is meaningless. If I ask, "do you think Avengers is better than Die Hard" then you can reasonably answer, "I am planning to see those movies next week, then I will let you know." However, if you have no intention of seeing the movies then "I don't know" doesn't really work as the question asks about your thoughts or beliefs not knowledge (yes I am being very nitpicky on grammar here). So the semantically accurate (although possibly incomplete) answer has to be "no, I don't think Avengers is better." (notice said person would also be able to answer a related question with "No, I do not think avengers is worse either.")

It is a matter of felling, not of propositional ideas — Janus

Assuming 'felling' above means "feeling" then I entirely agree. And know that I suck at poetry as much as I do religion. I keep trying to make sense of the words when I guess I am just supposed to feel their meaning, ugh.

And thanks for attempting to clarify your reasoning. It seems our disagreement just boils down to a few very nuanced differences in our FEELINGS (?haha) about certain words. It is actually rather interesting, of course it is also a little frustrating :smile:

scepticism about belief, but openness to 'the spiritual'. — Wayfarer

This is playing word games. Phrases like this automatically exclude people like me from the conversation as I am a stickler for definitions. 'open to the spiritual' sounds you think that there might be some spiritual truths despite a lack of direct evidence - that certainly meets the definition of belief. There seem to be a lot of people trying to avoid belief, I don't get it...only an all knowing being could avoid belief. Isn't avoiding belief like avoiding emotion? We do it all the time whether we like it or not (and redefining words doesn't help us avoid it).

I viewed belief as a kind of cop-out. — Wayfarer

Amazing. I have never read Wittgenstein, but this must be the stuff he is on about. As you can probably tell, I view 'I have no beliefs' as a type of cop out. I am no longer trying to say you are wrong. If we both understand words so differently, clearly we are not going to make much progress.

I have to run, so I will read the rest a bit later. I will respond if I feel there is something important to both of us understanding each other.

when I

whereas at least ‘the secular view’ has. — Wayfarer

when I hear 'secular view' I hear scientific method. did you mean something else?

So you start by presuming that ‘religions have no moral authority’ whereas at least ‘the secular view’ has. — Wayfarer

Explain how religion put satellites in orbit? Ignore philosophy, in all other fields, the 'secular view' has a good track record. That was my point? That is why I said when it comes to 'moral oughts' that religion has equal track record to philosophy.

This is probably a tangent to the main point of your thread, so I will understand being ignored:

a system of private ownership and non-aggression — Virgo Avalytikh

I still can't figure out why libertarians use 'non-aggression' when they seem to mean 'non-violent'? If they actually mean 'non-aggressive' then I guess aggressive marketing campaigns (and a thousand other business ideas that can accurately - not figuratively - apply the word aggressive) are off the table? What am I missing?

@wayfarer

I just saw I missed a fairly long response from you. I will get to it...soon :smile:

Janus,

This topic interests me, and I struggle to understand Agnostic arguments. My arguing style is very matter-of-fact which suddenly seems mean or condescending or something that upsets people. I only intend to argue specific points so hopefully I am not too annoying (right off the bat, I am not even sure you are an Agnostic vs just agnostic like me, please pardon any assumptions):

There are three possibilities: you actively believe "X", you actively disbelieve "X" or you withhold judgement and neither believe nor disbelieve "X'. — Janus

I kindly and whole-heartedly disagree? Why do you get to add to the definition? Your third option sounds like someone who does not believe 'x'? Very different from actively disbelieving, I agree. But since when does belief carry the added meaning you have created? And if you think it has always had the connotation you describe, can you point me in the direction of something that would cause me to agree? All I have to go off is the dictionary...

Is this the ENTIRE reason atheists and agnostics can't agree? Agnostics add much more meaning to 'belief' than atheists do? (I guess more accurately, they attach way more meaning to "I do not believe" than most atheists tend to do?).

Why do you feel the need to say "withhold judgement and neither believe nor disbelieve "X'" instead of just "no, currently I do not believe 'x' but there is a lot more information to collect before I am confident"? Your phrasing hints at the idea of "not holding any beliefs" but I thought that whopper had been exposed as nonsense, similar to people who claim to be entirely un-emotional.

There is no possible evidence or reason outside of your own experience that could, or should, make you a believer in anything beyond the empirical. What constitutes evidence or reason within your own experience cannot but be a matter just for you, and in this regard you are beholden to no one else unless you choose to be, or you lack the resources to critique and resist social influences. — Janus

I think I agree. When I said,

"if you expect ME to believe any of this stuff about an 'invisible being' then you'd better have some kind of evidence"
— ZhouBoTong — Janus

, I was responding to,

So, that leads to exchanges where the "secular" view has a kind of presumptive authority, like, "if you're going to defend the notion of an "invisible being" then you'd better have some kind of evidence!" — Wayfarer

.

I am a bit confused as to what exactly I should be learning here. In my mind the "secular view" has authority because it has a fairly proven track record (in many aspect of life...nothing has a proven track record when it comes to moral oughts so religion can still claim some of that domain).

Most are there in order to get a job. Learning is not a high priority — Fooloso4

My thoughts exactly...unfortunately.

As a result I somewhat take a step back when it comes with children, I speak to them like they are adults — Grre

Well I definitely have this problem/trait. This is actually why I only teach middle school or higher, because younger than that, they NEED emotion/facial expressions to understand the words (tell a 6 year old that they can't do something while smiling and/or laughing...I bet they do it again).

even make casual conversation and small talk about things in my own life (like telling them my baby fish died), but in no way do I pretend to be their friend or talk baby talk to them. Children are smart, curious, and honest, and I try to let their natural capacities guide them; I ALWAYS answer their questions honestly, and I NEVER tell them to stop asking questions or "because I said so" or "that's just the way it is — Grre

Ok, you talk to children like adults for good reasons, haha. I do it because I am not sure of how else to talk to someone :grimace: But seriously, everything you said here sounds like you would be a great elementary teacher, and we need a lot more smart ones (I would bet big money that THE BIGGEST cause of America's math deficiency is that MOST of our elementary teachers don't really know math).

Question-asking, or "inquiry" as educational theorists have described it, is so important to maintaining critical thinking skills (philosophy skills!) — Grre

Sounds right to me. I think this is lacking in schools for a significant reason...what happens when the student asks a question that the teacher doesn't understand? A smart teacher will explicitly say, "gee, I DON'T KNOW", "maybe we should do a little research (or create a project) and figure this out. Unfortunately, dumb (mean word choice, maybe "those from the bottom of their graduating classes" is better?) people view "I DON'T KNOW" as a sign of weakness, and many teachers are hesitant to use those words (I even had an education professor question me after I praised a student who pointed out that something I said wasn't exactly right).

by claiming that all facts are absolute, memory-based testing ect. vs. open discussion and exploration as more encouraged today — Grre

Hopefully, we eventually accept that all of these learning methods have their place. Rote memorization is not ideal for the vast majority of deep learning (probably ALL deep learning, I guess I meant the vast majority of learning). However, I have not seen any other method that works nearly as good for things like learning the alphabet and the multiplication tables. Students that do not memorize their multiplication tables (and it is becoming more and more common) NEVER get them down. Education is quick to throw the baby out with the bath water, so to speak.

focused so heavily on stigmatizing the "bully" and romanticizing the victim without examine external circumstances and pressures — Grre

There is some slight coming around on this issue as we all start to admit that many things are outside individual control (the book - and movie - called 'Wonder' definitely spent some time ensuring the reader understood that the bully had a tough life too).

I feel like this whole paragraph (yours) shows some of the difficulties in attempting to ensure a good education...there are so many factors that play a role. Kind of like trying to predict economics without acknowledging that most people are bat sh*t crazy.

The biggest defining difference between "coolness" as perceived among children and "coolness" as perceived among adults is that adults are more often forced to interact, collaborate, and put up with people regardless of their "cool" factor. Therefore, there is more room for heterogeneity and interspersion-I am friends with people I consider less "cool" than me because we have other common interests or were forced into similar or close-working situations. — Grre

I wrote a bunch of my thought on 'cool' but it felt equally rant-like to what I wrote before...so I will just say that I generally agree with you, but would just add "it can be complicated depending on the individual and the situation"

Is it presumptuous of me to presume that you were not considered "cool" in school? — Grre

Not at all, haha. Seems a safe bet.

I think (I tend to be good at being objective, but it may difficult here) I would have counted as 'cool' until I was about 14-16 (somewhere around Freshman -Sophomore year of High School). Then 'cool' suddenly required more than playing sports and I was having none of that. Basically, as soon as I was aware that 'cool' was a thing, I started to become aware that I was not that (I actually get very uncomfortable if I am ever the center of attention...unless I am busy, like playing sports).

I wonder what they think those with a PhD in philosophy should do. Be like Socrates and harass people at the mall? — Fooloso4

Hahaha, indeed. It really makes me laugh (and get a little sad) to think of Socrates in modern America. At best he would be a barely respected teacher, more likely just a bum that no one listened to.

I think that if potential students and their parents are aware of the problem and make clear that they will not apply to schools with a high percentage of adjuncts things may begin to change. — Fooloso4

Unfortunately, I think businesses will have to stop hiring students from high adjunct density colleges before parents (and their students) begin to change. If that degree from Purdue (not trying to highlight that school as using a lot of adjuncts - I have no idea), still GUARANTEES the student a good job/career, will anyone care? What percent of students are actually there to learn anything anyway?

Half the people in the world think that the metaphors of their religious traditions...are facts. And the other half contends that they are not facts at all. As a result we have people who consider themselves "believers" because they accept metaphors as facts, and we have others who classify themselves as "atheists" because they think religious metaphors are lies. — Wayfarer

if the metaphors are JUST metaphors, then lie or not, aren't we done here? There would be no debate as all atheists think the bible is JUST stories (analogy, metaphor, whatever you want to call it). So clearly you and that author mean A LOT more than JUST metaphor. Again, careful word selection is key.

What is the implied 3rd option? The metaphors are half-truths (sounds like someone is still half right)?

Are the 'metaphors' about an actual god? Surely, if there IS an actual god, and said being DID want the bible written, then some of it is NOT metaphor? "I am he who is called I am." What is the metaphor in this line if there actually is a god?

Well I just did some brief research on Joseph Campbell and the book you quoted and I am even more confused. Was Campbell an atheist/agnostic? His books seem to focus on myth, and he seems to treat Christianity the same as the greek religions and everything else. Are you trying to propose like a spiritual 'god is nature' type deal? I don't think the bible offers anything, metaphor or not, that supports that - or at least no more support than say Walden by Thoreau.

Campbell also gets into that Carl Jung archetypal hero nonsense that somehow gets massive respect, despite it not really working unless it is applied to Odysseus and only Odysseus. (sorry angry side tangent from my trauma in English classes)

OK I will try. — Wayfarer

Thanks Wayfarer. You will see from my response that I am interested, but as you are already aware, I obviously do not exactly understand, or at least have certain questions. And yes, we are ALL unlikely to entirely change our viewpoint based on this discussion, but maybe I can add a few more doubts or uncertainties (I already have plenty, but happy to add more).

it is expected that one is either a believer or one is not. — Wayfarer

What about those pesky agnostics? They seem to think they are neither, haha.

But more seriously, I can admit that my life is full of beliefs. But I only have faith in things that some other human knows (the extraordinarily advanced math that underlays a lot scientific understanding would be a fine example) or that experience has shown me to be true (the sun will rise tomorrow). I don't have any faith in things that are entirely unknown...why would I? No one has ever given me a single reason to believe such things (if Pascal's Wager is actually the BEST argument, then that basically means there is no argument). I get that many atheists seem to act like they have NO beliefs, but if they are pushed, I think you will find their actual view is closer to what I described above, with some semantic misunderstanding. Similar to Theists that KNOW for sure there IS a god. All they have told me for sure, is that they do not know the definition of KNOW.

Uh, oh. This could get real long (it did). That should be enough (way too much?) about where I am coming from. I will try to focus on your points and the aspects of those points that I don't understand.

there can't be anything real in it, as to believe so is to thrown in your lot with the believers (isn't it?) — Wayfarer

I get that some atheists go to far with this attitude. As far as I am concerned, "there can't be anything real in it" is pure belief. "I don't know of anything real in it" or "I have never been shown anything that leads me to consider that there may be something real in it" are simply true statements that say nothing about whether there is or is not a god. And a semantically careful atheist would be aware of this and use those latter statements.

But I have always tried to resist this dichotomy, which I think is very much due to the cultural dynamics of Christianity, and Protestantism in particular. — Wayfarer

I do not understand this part. I do not know of any Christian non-believers...how could someone call themselves christian and a non-believer? They could go to church. They could tell their wife they are christian. But if they don't believe in the god of abraham or that jesus was his son who died for the sins of mankind, then they don't meet the definition of christian...right? Well I just looked up the definition and apparently if you were baptised, you are christian. So that makes me a Catholic Christian Agnostic Atheist. Seems nonsensical...?

After all in Protestantism, exclusive emphasis is put on salvation by faith alone. Right belief, 'ortho-doxa' is of utmost importance (although ultimately for Calvinists, even that is no guarantee of salvation.) Along with that undercurrent, is the general tendency to conceive of God as being like a celestial director or magistrate. — Wayfarer

This all makes sense and sounds familiar. (I always disliked this idea within Christianity as child - "wait so being good has nothing to do with it, why not?" - add in the idea of predestination and it gets double problematic).

Against that background the only two options seem to be either acquiescing to belief or rejecting it altogether. — Wayfarer

I still can't see a third option. I often spend time trying to show agnostics that they lack belief, so can we just admit they are technically agnostic atheists. I think this is where we will struggle to see eye to eye. "Do you believe in 'x'?" I don't see an answer that makes sense besides yes or no. Notice, I could respond, "I don't even know what 'x' is", well if I have never heard of something, surely I don't believe in it. If someone was to explain it, then maybe I can admit, "oh, actually, I do sort of believe that" but we can't believe in things we don't know of. Now 'know of' is different from 'knowing'. I can know of, and therefor believe in, say quantum physics without actually understanding it. I would think most religious beliefs function in this way.

After all, to believe is to be required to believe in a very particular way. — Wayfarer

?? Hopefully, I have already said enough to show that I do not limit belief in the way described above.

And obviously the secular thinker has decided for rejection so the whole question is done and dusted. — Wayfarer

Now I get that it comes across this way much of the time. But many atheists (most on this site), have not decided anything. Decide what? Notice many atheists here go so far as to question the question. Why should we even begin to wonder if there is a god? What is this entity called god anyway? 'Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy' somewhat captures this attitude.

It is just that no one (or no thing) has ever shown us anything that would lead us to believe there is a god. (but after decades of having the same arguments, they may get short in their responses)

So the upshot is, there is a hard line when it comes to what is regarded as "supernatural". It is, by definition, a kind of cultural taboo; not only taboo, but something for which even the appropriate metaphors can no longer be found. So this shows up in many of the threads here about religion, by secular people who haven't much actual grounding in it; not sure what is at stake, but certain that it must be ultimately fallacious or superseded or archaic. — Wayfarer

I do catch myself over-using 'supernatural'. However, by definition if something is 'super-natural' then it is above or outside nature and CAN'T be known. Now you may be saying that by labeling 'god' as supernatural then it is sequestered into the realm of knowledge that CAN'T be know, while you are trying to suggest that it can be know...therefor it is not supernatural. I am cool with that. You will still have to show me something to elicit any sort of a belief out of me, but I can try to be more careful with my words along these lines...AM I SORT OF UNDERSTANDING THIS PART CORRECTLY?

So, that leads to exchanges where the "secular" view has a kind of presumptive authority, like, "if you're going to defend the notion of an "invisible being" then you'd better have some kind of evidence!" — Wayfarer

OK! I think I get the problem a little better because I am definitely guilty of this one. However, what I really mean when I come across this way is, "if you expect ME to believe any of this stuff about an 'invisible being' then you'd better have some kind of evidence". But depending on the words of the person I am debating with, it may get phrased closer to how you said it. However, I am sure you get a bit snippy too, when an atheist says the same thing you have heard 50 times before.

many are drawn to religions out of necessity, the realisation of the existential plight of everyday life; and if you don't feel that necessity, then it's always going to seem incomprehensible. — Wayfarer

Agreed until 'incomprehensible'. I can understand that people have that need, despite not having it myself. What does that have to do with whether or not a religion is right? Saying, "there must be a god because many people think there is and it makes them feel good" seems pretty week. It is a type of evidence, but it is evidence through reasoning...and like I said, I don't find that reasoning particularly sharp.

Second, to really grasp what it has that has been rejected by secular modernity takes considerable imagination and study. — Wayfarer

Sounds like a word game to wall-off those who disagree. And all the religious would be atheist if they just used a bit more critical thinking, right?

In times past, everyone was 'religious' — Wayfarer

Hmmm, we can agree with most (maybe. that is a lot of history you just covered with 'in the past'), but when the penalty for disbelief is death or being ostracized, it would have been tough to get an actual count. Also, the modern world shows that 90%+ of all humans are just going to believe the same thing as their parents, whether it is religion, politics, or sports teams.

It only became conceivable to challenge that due to particular developments in Western culture of the last several hundred years. — Wayfarer

The scientific method? Seems like it has been pretty beneficial in every other area of life. No real surprise it got applied to religion.

So a lot of what us moderns take for granted about the nature of things might be inconcievable to our forbears — Wayfarer

While society has changed, people have not. Anything our ancestors understood, we can too (and some people alive still do) and vice versa (society has accumulated knowledge that no one person could know, but that is different). It may take a while to learn, but what type of knowledge was known in the past that we can't know today? Why should we assume our ancestors had extra knowledge into "the nature of things" that we should value? Any valuable insights were likely passed down, right?

The upshot is, the meaning of some of the fundamental attitudes of philosophical theology are so remote from our own experience, that they are dismissed as sophistry or rationalisation — Wayfarer

Since I obviously do not even get what you are trying to say with this type of stuff, can you give examples? And know that I am likely to go through them and say why I think they are sophistry or not - then you can tell me why my description of that example as sophistry is wrong - then we can look at the definition of sophistry - then either one of us sees that we weren't using the word sophistry right or nobody learned anything and we move on to the next issue KNOWING that each side has everything they need to form their opinion.

Whereas, the claims of 'scientific atheism' are regarded as well-founded, practically self-evident, based on things that 'everyone knows', or should know. So, then, trying to challenge this received wisdom (or what poses as wisdom) is often futile. — Wayfarer

You spend too much time around philosophy people. Do you live in America? Why don't you just talk to the 80% to 90% of people that agree with you? If you live in Europe, it may be a bit tougher, but you can still probably assume that 30-40% of the population agrees with you (I would actually think it closer to 60-70% if you really push people on their beliefs, but Europeans are more likely to default to the secularism is right thing). Our government constantly belittles scientific atheism...with atheists being just about the least represented group in the country (I do suspect more politicians are atheist but they are smart enough to lie as no atheist gets elected in this country).

'scientific atheism' — Wayfarer

one thing at a time. You will likely get less of a gut dismissal if you separate those 2 words. Most students that went to school these days will believe science (Thank Apollo), but may still be religious and count that as outside the view of science. Even if they are not religious, they may still admit that the atheism question cannot be entirely answered by science. But if you say 'scientific atheism' they may latch onto the science part and say something along the lines of "well you are happy to embrace science when it gives you a smart phone, but then dismiss it when it is inconvenient".

are regarded as well-founded, practically self-evident, based on things that 'everyone knows', or should know. So, then, trying to challenge this received wisdom (or what poses as wisdom) is often futile. — Wayfarer

As far as I know, the only proven method for accumulating knowledge is the scientific method? It has been honed over the years to be as complete and useful as possible. Now this is separate from atheism, but if you are challenging received wisdom, you are challenging that evidence has been gathered. What new evidence do you have that will get me to reconsider the already collected evidence? Notice we are open to hearing new arguments/evidence, however, if we are told to reconsider without evidence, our response may sound dogmatic.

Hence my reticence — Wayfarer

I can understand that in general. How many negative experiences does one have to have before they change their behavior. And while you may have been wrong to assume my disinterest, it was probably safe to assume that I actually am not THAT open to changing my view. We could have this discussion for 20 pages and I may still have the same view, but I would not have kept it up for 20 pages if I wasn't interested and learning something (even if all I am learning is how someone like you views the world - in this case there is the potential for me to learn a 3rd way of looking at belief - I still don't get it - but I will try).

Holy Zeus, that was a long one.

Yes, of course we all know by now, O would-be Guru, that anyone who disagrees with you, or even has the temerity to ask you to present and justify the reasoning supporting your claims, has failed to understand. — Janus

Thanks J. And here I thought I was creating the opportunity for him to explain his ideas (even if I matched Wayfarer's slightly rude demeanor). Ah well.

I didn't. There are some who think it is an easy way to make a living with lots of free time. — Fooloso4

haha. Well maybe 'joking' was the wrong word. I did mention I was being sarcastic in the next sentence. But overall, I am happy to accept that most communication failures are likely my fault :grimace:

I don't know what will bring about change but as long as there is a pool of qualified people willing to teach and an administration unwilling to hire full-time, let alone tenure track, faculty the problem will persist. — Fooloso4

Yes, and unfortunately, in America, people would tell those qualified people to get out there and do something (those who can do, those who can't teach). I THINK THIS IS COMPLETE CRAP (beyond that it is nonsense), but I would expect that at least half of Americans agree with it to some extent, which makes the changes you described less likely.

ZhouBoTong, thanks for the help with the referencing of users.

It was very helpful. — god must be atheist

Someone helped me when I messed up the same thing :smile: pay it forward, haha.

My post was strictly about why education works, very well, from the point of view of the economy as a whole. — god must be atheist

I think I got that. My point, which upon review was not at all clear, is that poor people might not think it was working well for their 'economy', which is part of 'the economy'. So, I would take your evidence as showing that education works for maintaining a 2-3% increase in GDP every year. If it was 1919, I might have bought that 100 years of 2-3% increases would help the poor. The last 2-3 decades suggest that while GDP may continue to grow, it is not a given that everyone benefits.

Again, I think your analysis is correct. But know that most educators outside the business department DO NOT view 'the economy' as the point of education. If they did, wouldn't they have to tell all their students to switch to business, computers, or engineering classes? Surely the occasionally New York Times bestseller, or that one painting that just sold for 8 million, or those 6 astro-physicists that are paid to talk on the science channel, can not justify the entire English, Art, or Astronomy departments if the point of education is to improve the economy?

If you are referring to me then no I am not a libertarian. — Fooloso4

I thought I agreed with you a bit too often :smile: Sorry like I said, my brain makes assumptions that I occasionally need correction on...I have done worse...ask @Pattern-chaser, at some point I assumed he was African American...he has no African ancestry (well not recently anyway) and is not even American. Although I guess to be fair, I wouldn't mind being mistaken for a person who is black, and might take a little offense to being called libertarian...so maybe I owe you an extra apology.

Traditionally, adjuncts were experts working in other fields who brought their knowledge to the classroom. — Fooloso4

Dang, that makes sense. I think I missed that era. Too bad, it sounds great.

They rarely have the time or energy to pursue other interests. — Fooloso4

I hope you caught that I was joking when I said that. And in case I was otherwise vague and unclear (or making stupid assumptions), I agree that this:

Since there is now a shortage of academic jobs and there are several financial advantages to the university, adjuncts are taking the place of full time instructors. They would prefer a full-time position but they are few and far between. The workload carried by an adjunct may the about the same as a full-time faculty member, but since adjuncts are so poorly paid and there are no healthcare and other benefits they must either work full time doing something else or work at multiple schools with a workload that far exceeds full time faculty, and still make only a small fraction of full-timers. — Fooloso4

Is not good and needs fixing.

IN terms of numbers: in the seventies, X percent of high school graduates went on to study in post-secondary schools. Our current rate of Y percent, where X < Y shows robust reinforcement of that policy.

However, the good students of X (GX) was a greater percentage of X than now. Similarly, the good studernts of Y (GY) are greater in numbers, than GX. Despite the huge amount of graduates that are basically good for nothing.

The economy can be driven by the good graduates, and populated by the poor achievers, who are like fillers with the mandated task to spend money but without getting in over their heads in debt.. — god must be atheist

First off, you are clearly just stating facts, so I am not disagreeing, but...

I think you are using 'economy', when you mean 'progress of the human race'? Those brilliant people that drive progress forward actually are not the point of education...those people will be just fine. Also, what are the rest of us paying for when we go to college (can I get a decent job without a degree? can everyone?)? I am not saying you are wrong, but should the bottom 50% just shut up and eat our crappy existence because those few 'producers' deserve all the benefits of their own brilliance?

I think @Fooloso4 (by the way when you entered @fool and @zhou it did not work correctly - maybe you typed @...? you need to use the @ button at the top of the dialogue box...I am pretty sure), will be more encouraged by your point. I have gotten the feel from both of you that you may be agreeable to American libertarianism? In europe maybe they call themselves classical liberals? I am not trying to label anyone and PLEASE make fun of me when I am wrong (I do have a tendency to make wild assumptions and then base my entire conversation on those assumptions). I just find that I often agree with libertarian types on their assessment of the problems...then wildly disagree on the solution. Of course, I typically get to team-up with the libertarian types in the god/religion threads :smile: