Mww
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa

Thankyouthankyouthankyou....donations gratefully accepted, and will be forwarded to your favorite charity. Honest. Trust me. — Mww

I'm willing to trust you and I'd like to donate. But I always do my donations by bank to bank transfer. Just send me your banking info (do it by PM...some of these people may not be as trustworthy as I)...and I'll see to the transfer. Oh...include your social security number in case there are questions.

hachit
229
↪Frank Apisa
Supernatural means without explanation and i believe in the transcendent so, agree to disagree about what there called. — hachit

"Supernatural" has many different definitions. The one you offered is self-serving...so allow me to do the same in return: Supernatural: adjective: not existing in nature.

If it EXISTS...it is natural, even if we puny humans, the dominant life-form on this tiny rock circling this nondescript star in the nondescript galaxy are unable, at this time, to perceive it.

boethius
625
I'm not happy about it, but Biden is clearly the lesser of two evils.
— EricH

Shouldn't you also trust the devil you know at this point? — boethius

NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO,

Not sure if you are kidding here, Boethius...but if you are, it was a terrible jest.

Anyway, in case you weren't...NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO...you shouldn't.

Just want to mention something I have mentioned in several other threads:

If a thing exists...whatever that thing is...it is NATURAL.

If GODS exist...they are natural...not supernatural.

If ghosts or spirits exist...they are natural...not supernatural.

If dimensions exist that we humans are not able to perceive...they are as natural as apples or clouds...not supernatural.

Just sayin'!

Mww
1.5k
If every thought is singular and successive, then every thought is new with respect to its time, but not necessarily new with respect to its content. — Mww

Ladies and Gentlemen...

...we have a winner!

Nail hit squarely on its head.

Benkei
2.9k
↪Frank Apisa Happy to vote for a rapist because Trump is one too but yours is a Democrat? — Benkei

I am not a Democrat...so I have no reason for that to be my position.

I would choose Biden in a heartbeat, because Trump is the most ignorant, stupid, classless boor ever to pollute the presidency...and for the sake of our nation (and the world in general)...I want to see him become the most ignorant, stupid, classless ex-president we've ever had as soon as possible.

A Seagull
412
One of my favorite poems, by Lewis Carroll
— Frank Apisa

I do think that Lewis Carroll is under appreciated as a philosopher. Perhaps this is because his writings are more a satire of philosophy than a philosophy of satire. (Though I daresay that the Mad Hatter or one of his friends would say that they were the same thing.)

For example. his: 'What I say three times is true' ; 'you are nothing but a pack of cards' and his grin which can exist independent of a face are deeply meaningful and philosophically significant. — A Seagull

Indeed!

Here are a few quotes from Carroll that further show your point:

"I can't go back to yesterday - because I was a different person then."

"Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

"'But I don't want to go among mad people,' said Alice. 'Oh, you can't help that,' said the cat. 'We're all mad here.'"

"Who in the world am I? Ah, that's the great puzzle."

"Begin at the beginning," the King said, very gravely, "and go on till you come to the end: then stop."

"If you don't know where you are going, any road will take you there."

NOS4A2
3.1k
Wow. The case against Michael Flynn has been dropped! Finally some justice.

https://apnews.com/ae1ad252bb13490db2ceffc5d17b6d92

Incoming meltdown. — NOS4A2

Trump said he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue...and not lose any supporters. Trump, and his lap dog, Barr wanted the charges against Flynn dropped.

Flynn pleaded guilty to MANY crimes (he was only prosecuted for one) and that charge has been dropped...so "finally some justice" is an example of a Trump supporter doing what Trump said they would do for him.

Adolf Hitler had that sort of support also...as did Pol Pot and Idi Amin.

Wonder why that kind of person garners that kind of backing?

You'll conclude by stating the upshot of your discussion. (For instance, should we accept the thesis? Should we reject it? Or should we conclude that we don't yet have enough information to decide whether the thesis is true or false?)

Or you can handle it the way it is handled in a vast majority of debate/discussions on the Internet. Simply declare that you have established some point or another.; that you have "won" the intellectual battle that has been taking place; and declare that anyone who cannot see that you have is just missing the point...almost certainly because he/she is too stupid to understand things.

At 83...no big deal for me at this point.

But back in the day...when I was very active...if it got me laid, I was all for being very open.

If the opposite tactic got me laid...I was for that, instead.

The objective always was: Is it gonna get me laid.

I was never much for lying, though...so if it came to that, I passed. Luckily, I spent lots of time tending bar...and the table was always full enough to push some dishes away, so to speak.

In philosophy we are taught a mnemonic to help ensure our writing will be as clear, concise, and unambiguous as possible: to write for an audience assumed to be “stupid, lazy, and mean”. — Pfhorrest

My philosophy courses came a very long time ago (I'm 83)...but I was never taught that...and it does not sound like a philosophical position of much merit to me.

It sounds to me like the kind of thing Trump might say when lecturing Generals about how to run a war.

That said...it makes sense to be as clear, concise, and unambiguous as possible when writing anything...unless you are writing something like...


’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

“Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!”

He took his vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!”
He chortled in his joy.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

One of my favorite poems, by Lewis Carroll

StreetlightX
5.2k
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. So Biden should not only get a congressional hearing, but more besides. — StreetlightX

DingoJones
1.7k
↪Relativist

Im not familiar enough with the cases to talk about legal exoneration but it does seem hypocritical to treat the cases differently in this context. If you think one should or should not be dismissed, then you should think the other should or shouldn't be dismissed as well. If you think the accusation factors into job qualification for one, then you should think it for both. Whatever moral judgements made should be made for both etc etc. — DingoJones

One charge involved a young, privileged college student who had drunk way too much "beer" and supposedly happened in a house during a fraternity party...

...the other involved a United States Senator who has no other charges of this sort made during his 40 years in public office...and supposedly happened in a hallway on the Senate side of the Capitol Building of the United States of America...

...and you think they should be treated the same.

Interesting.

But I think that's like saying a sand castle built by a 5 year-old kid at the beach should be treated the same as a house built by Frank Lloyd Wright.

Excellent!

Relativist
1.4k
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. — Relativist

Very, very well put, Relativist!

Pantagruel
692
↪I like sushi Uh-huh. So you would tend to agree that the "practical value for society" is a good criterion of productivity?

I was more re-affirming your question to Banno, and agreeing with your question. — Pantagruel

In order to meet the needs and wants of society...MAXIMUM PRODUCTIVITY should be the main focus of attention for everyone.

Unfortunately, in a capitalistic society such as we have become...PROFIT becomes more important...and there often is a disconnect between profit and maximum productivity.

jgill
455
How does a UBI relate to communism? I seem to recall most people had to work for a living in the USSR. — jgill

Not only did they have to work...if they didn't, they'd often end up in a gulag.

Punshhh
1.7k
↪Frank Apisa No shit, down our way we call one like that a Camberwell carrot. — Punshhh

Never heard that one before. Spliffs are build like carrots, though.

180 Proof
1k
↪Frank Apisa Ras! Me nah know you cool dat way, breddah Francis. Irie, mon! :cool: — 180 Proof

Loved that comment, 180!

I remember a day way back in the 1960's when I discovered that my much younger sister smoked pot. I was naive back then and had not yet indulged. I was hoping she was not a lost soul, and asked her, "How often do you smoke it?"

She replied, "Just about every day." I damn near died on the spot, figuring she was soon to be dead of what I considered "over-dose." (Like I said, I was naive.")

Then, in my mid 30's I got turned on for he first time. Ended up smoking a forest of dope. One day I'm speaking with a person I had not known was a pot-head and asked, "So, how often do you smoke?"

"Every day," he said.

"Of course every day," says I, "but...I mean...like how often?"

Ahhh...how things change.

tim wood
4.3k
↪NOS4A2 You don't get it. and I wonder if you could be that naive. Trump has, and has had, many opportunities daily to do the right thing, and with only one exception I can think of, he not only doesn't do them, but does as many mean rotten low-down, & etc., things as he can in the time he has. For him it's his full-time job it seems: who can he hurt. This is just plain a very bad man. And you were disappointed? — tim wood

Yeah, I gotta acknowledge when I read NOS's words, "I was admittedly disappointed with Trump's response to a question in his most recent town hall"...my thoughts were, I can hardly remember a time when I was NOT disappointed in what the abomination has said.

Damn near everything that comes out of his mouth should make a reasonable person gag!

I'm 83...and I still care.

I'd say, "We'll see how things go"...but at 83, I most probably will not see how this plays out in the long run. The judiciary has become a political plaything...and THAT is not good.

NOS4A2
3.1k
↪Frank Apisa

“Gaining money” and using it how one chooses is one thing; taking and distributing that money to others is quite another. The former is just; the latter is unjust.

As for the argument that we should institute a UBI because jobs are becoming automated, the same fears have gripped workers throughout history whenever new innovations threatened industries. In each case there has been no reason to have a UBI. — NOS4A2

Okay...stick with that.

At one point in our history, there were people who stuck with the notion that kids should be put to work in coal mines...and work 10 - 12 hours days 5 1/2 days a week.

Those opinions are allowed.

There are lots of ways of gaining money that does not involve productive work, NOS. Marrying into it, inheriting it, swindling others out of it are just a few examples of those ways.

Money itself is just a means to an end...and the "end" is "the distribution" of what people need and want.

Accumulating money is one of the basest ways of saying "my dick is bigger than your dick." (Yeah, yanking dicks out and actually comparing is not as base.)

We can simply invent a different, more efficient, way of distribution...especially since so much of the work to obtain the stuff we need and want is done by machines.

Punshhh
1.7k
↪ssu That's quite a reefer he's smoking. — Punshhh

That ain't no reefer...it is a spliff.

I did many of those down in Jamaica, Mon.

Xtrix
702
5 people in this poll voting for Trump.

I shouldn't be shocked that ignorance abounds everywhere, even in philosophy forums. — Xtrix

I guess you are correct...it shouldn't surprise.

But it does. I find it incredible that 5 people intelligent enough to want to engage in discussion in a Philosophy Forum...would still be willing to vote for Trump.

More than surprise me, though...it discouraged me.

I am beginning to think we do not deserve the great gift that has been passed down to us. Our only job was to protect and defend it for the short time it will be in our custody...and instead, MILLIONS of people are shitting on it.

Metaphysician Undercover
7k
There are bosses, fellow workers, and underlings who fall into that category.
— Frank Apisa

OK, but when we pay the bosses to disappear they might want more money than the underlings we pay to disappear. Can we make the bosses take a cut in pay, or do they disappear with a large salary? — Metaphysician Undercover

Anyone who cannot be more productive than another human...or a machine, robot, or computer...

...should take up the job of "stay out of the way" specialist.

They should all get paid the same.

If a guy is a "boss" who cannot do the job as well as someone or something else...he can downsize until he fits in a niche where he can be more productive. (The opposite end of the Peter Principle ladder.)

The people who actually can be productive and who do the work...should make really decent bucks. Much more than the SOOTW specialists.

Metaphysician Undercover
7k
The notion of unearned income is fundamentally flawed because income is never unearned.
— NOS4A2

"Earn" is one of those ambiguous words with many different meanings. Equivocation between those distinct meanings may make your statement true. But then the labourer might earn a wage in one sense of the word, the investor might earn a profit in another sense of the word, and even the thief might earn, in the sense of deserve the money stolen in retribution. Anyway, you should see that "income is never unearned" requires equivocation between distinct senses of "earn". And if you restrict "earn" to legal ventures, and "income" to legally sourced money, you have a useless statement which cannot even be called a tautology because it doesn't represent any reality. — Metaphysician Undercover

As I have mentioned several times...these days, one should be able to EARN one's living by simply staying out of the way.

There are people who do more for productivity by just going home. There are bosses, fellow workers, and underlings who fall into that category. Is there anyone here who can say they do not know of someone who would have helped the productivity of a particular company...by just disappearing?

So...if we recognize that some people are only taking up space for another person or a machine that could increase productivity...that person should be paid to stay out of the way. All he/she is doing is what must be done...trying to EARN a living. Let's be real about it...and pay them to stay away. The alternative is to let them starve to death...or to hurt productivity...both of which make a lot less sense than paying them to stay away.

Zophie
31
On a related note, will new technology make something like this a necessity at some point, I wonder? — Zophie

Do not wonder any longer.

IT WILL!

BINGO!

The UBI is coming...and there will come a day when people will wonder why it took so long to get here.

My guess is the UBI will get here within the lifetime of people now alive...perhaps even during the lifetime of people who are now adults.

I'm 83...I won't see it. But I have been an advocate for the UBI for over three decades now.

It will come...and future people will look at us who now lack it...the way we look at people who thought it okay for grammar school kids to work 6 1/2 days a week digging coal in coal mines.

All that neoliberal/neoconservative/liberal/libertarian/conservative labeling nonsese ought to be outlawed in conversations of this sort. It reminds me of the discussions about atheism/agnosticism/theism that devolve into arguments over what the words mean.

That is where we are in the Neoeverything issue.

Joe Biden was not my favorite for the nomination to oppose Trump...but I would vote for Biden in a heartbeat over Trump. And I would do so with lots of enthusiasm.

The mainstays of MSNBC, CNN, AND FOX will have to find some other way to make a buck when Trump goes...but covering him is like covering the coronavisus pandemic.

Everything not absolutely needed, essentially is a bullshit product.

Anyway...not only should we all have shorter work weeks...some people should NOT be allowed to work at all. Some people help productivity best by staying the hell out of the way. (They are the people who often hear other people telling them, "You wanna help...don't help."

Those people should be provided for...paid for "staying the hell out of the way." And as Benkei just suggested, they should be paid well.

Everyone has finally got to grok that.

Only then will the amalgam of Capitalism tempered by Socialism finally work properly.

Capitalism has no interest in the PWE except that it gives it ripped off moral cover for exploiting labor, alienating the workers' product from the worker. Capitalism perfected the Capitalist Work Ethic, which is "work for the lowest possible wage and be grateful you have a job." Capitalism is a system of acquisition and accumulation through exploitation. — Bitter Crank

Okay. But whether the result of PWE or not...the exploitation of labor has got to stop. It has to stop dead in its tracks...and it must stop immediately.

And, as I said earlier, only the most capable should be ALLOWED to work. The remainder of the people must become Keep Out Of The Way specialists. The KOOW specialists will be the most important element of a new world order...and as such, should be paid handsomely. Enough so that hey can afford "plenty"...not just "enough."

Gregory
968
So.. what is the relationship between cracking codes (like in wartime) and tracing words throughout history? Where do we get our senses of probability when it comes to history and especially etymology? How can one say with certainty "it's unlikely this word did not precede this other one"? — Gregory

We cannot say almost anything with certainty...
...but with regard to etymology and "whether this word preceded this other" can be determined by etymologists simply by looking at where and when a word was first used.

Some atheists suggest that the word atheist means without a "belief" in any gods because the word "theist" means "with a belief in a god"...and the prefix "a" means without.

BUT the word atheist came into use in the English language 100 years BEFORE theist...so that derivation cannot be.

Just an example.

MY OPINION: The solution will not be found in lowering the working hours from 8 to 4 or to 2 or to 1.

The solution will involve getting rid of the "Protestant work ethic"...getting rid of the notion that one must earn one's living. Then...ONLY the truly productive should be allowed to work. ONLY people who can be more productive than machines, robots and computers should be allowed to work for the MORE that working people will get as a reward.

All the other people should be encouraged to find other things to do...like spend more time with family, tend to the garden, tend to the lawn, clean the house, do art, write, read, invent, play more golf, watch more movies, do more exercise...or if needs be, do nothing more productive than bend two trees in toward each other by lying in a hammock all day.

Pfhorrest
1.8k
The big hold-up is that the rich aren’t going to pay the workers the same money for “less work” = fewer hours, so if the work can get done in fewer hours, the workers have to convince the rich that they still need to put in as many hours in order to justify continuing to get the same pay (and therefore deserving the same access to the things they need to live).

The problem, as always, is capitalism. — Pfhorrest

The problem IS capitalism. At least "capitalism" as we have managed to mold it.

And make no mistake about it...the factor of production that will ALWAYS take the greatest hit in this kid of capitalistic society...WILL BE LABOR.

Entrepreneurship, under this system is obligated to MAXIMIZE profit...and the easiest way to do that is to minimize payment to labor.

tim wood
4.3k
We spend almost $800,000,000,000 per year on the military.
— Frank Apisa
I do not question your $8B figure. I do question whether it's a true figure - probably not too far off. Anyway, roughly $2500+ per US soul.

My understanding of the fall of the Soviet Union is that it was mainly - not entirely - the result of a decision by the Reagan administration that the US could spend them to death. And it did. I wonder now if the US is spending itself to death. If it is, can it be reversed, and on what terms. — tim wood

Only an opinion, but we do seem to be spending a lot.

The thing that I take into consideration is that every cent the government spends...someone else EARNS. Mostly, I suspect, the top 1% gets the cream...but a portion goes to those in the 99% below them. Every penny of military spending is EARNED (or obtained) by someone else in the economy.

My feeling is that the government should be the employer of last resort. There should NEVER be any unemployment, because the government (local, county, state, national) should be required to hire anyone who cannot get a job elsewhere in the economy. (There's a lot more to that thought, but best not to get into that here and now.) In other words, spend even more.

tim wood
4.3k
We spend almost $800,000,000 per year on military.
— Frank Apisa
If only. I think you're missing a set of zeros. — tim wood

Yes I am, Tim. Good catch.

I originally wrote $800 billion (with a "b")...and then thought it would be more dramatic with the zero's.

Screwed it up. So...

We spend almost $800,000,000,000 per year on the military.

frank
4.8k
The need to maintain a standing army holds a country hostage in some ways. National security overrides other issues. In that climate, a special kind of corruption invades. Resistance to change is cemented by those who benefit from that corruption. — frank

We've grown so used to war over the centuries...it is almost a way of life.But what the hell would we want to fight wars for now?

Would anyone want to OCCUPY France...or England...or anyplace?

Can you imagine OCCUPYING China, Russia, India, the US...at this point?

Kings used to fight wars for territory. There is no need for that now.

The idea that the US has to spend as much as it does on military might...is fucking nuts.

We spend almost $800,000,000 per year on military.

We should be institutionalized for doing so.

You are correct...it was long.

It seems you are more interested in lecturing than in discussing.

If you get around to where you want to discuss instead...let us know. I'll certainly join a discussion.

Thanks. And thanks for the spoof, too. I got a good, and much needed laugh at it this morning.:smile: