While at my age sex is becoming pretty much a dead issue, I have always been concerned that my sexual habits be free of interference. Over many years I have found both governments and individuals quite willing to interfere with the legal and consensual sex ways I prefer. In the past (but not so much now) there were institutions and individuals who were quite willing to interfere with my open expression of unpopular political views.

I have generally found the work place to be one where the employer claimed the right to control all sorts of speech (like about the defects of the employer). Employers regularly interfere with the right of workers to unionise.

Business interests often behave in ways that limit citizens. For instance, the local grocery market was changed negatively through monopolistic practices. A major food retailer has disappeared, reducing competition. With less competition, quality goes down, prices go up, and choice is limited.

Humans have been appropriating neighbouring tribal cultures since the get go.

Culture is one thing (hula dancing) material resources are a different thing. It isn't wrong for people in Iceland to practice hula dancing of the sort that is done in Hawaii. There is something wrong with the industrial production of SW American Indian folk art (blankets, pottery, baskets, etc.) by non-Indians and then wrecking the tribal economy by setting up markets for fake "authentic American Indian Art" down the road from the real tribal art sales rooms. There might be something wrong with tribal members selling fake folk art work too -- but this falls into the category of fair trade practices and unfair competition -- not cultural appropriation.

The accusation of "cultural appropriation" comes out of the authoritarian urge to forbid people from behaving normally -- like eating other culture's foods, wearing their fabric designs, or learning their languages.

Is a major conflict imminent in the Middle East?

Significant and major conflicts have been going on in the Middle East for quite some time. No need to wait--it's here.

The French Ambassador to the UN (formerly to the US) said in an editorial today that the world is becoming a more dangerous place. There are many ongoing conflicts with the potential to become much hotter and larger, and there is currently no cop on the beat, and no clarity internationally about what to accept, tolerate, forbid, or actively suppress.

So, expect trouble.

We want freedom FROM unreasonable interference by other people (not just the government). We want freedom TO exercise our wills to a reasonable extent. Restraint and limits are necessary to achieve freedom from/freedom to. We have to restrain ourselves to some degree, and so do others, including institutions.

"The Line" between too much interference and too little protection, or between our own and others' reasonable restraint in exercising our freedom TO is changeable over time and place. The Line has to be negotiated by the people at various levels.

Right.

That some people have humor taboos helps the impact of some humor, though. — Terrapin Station

n a lot of jokes dependent on context, it's difficult to pin down what's funny. — yupamiralda

This is why we can't have funny comedians anymore. — fishfry

Getting a laugh is tricky. There's the joke, the delivery, and the audience. The audience is the wild card, the least controllable factor. Good comedians "read the room" and adjust the material.

These were successful jokes.

A blonde and her father are walking down a street when the father says, ''Look, a dead bird.'' And the blonde looks up and says, ''Where?''

This man is walking by an insane asylum and he hears the inmates inside chanting inside "Thirteen, thirteen, thirteen--" He is so fascinated that he walks up to the door and puts his eye up the keyhole and somebody pokes him in the eye with a sharp stick and the inmates start changing "Fourteen, fourteen, fourteen--"

A man walked out of the bar and got in his car and a policeman came over and said, "Sir, your eyes seem to be bloodshot. Have you been drinking?" The man looked at the police officer and replied, "Officer, your eyes seem to be glazed. Have you been eating doughnuts?"

Three businessmen on a plane. First guy says, “That suit looks great on you. You must be a Harvard man.” Second guy says, “Yes, thank you. I did go to Harvard. And with that classy briefcase, I would guess that you went to Yale.” First guy says, “Yes, I am a Yale man.” They both look at the third guy, and they say, “You must have gone to University of Oklahoma.” Third guy says, “Why yes, I did. How could you tell?” “We saw your class ring when you picked your nose.”

Just what is the handicapped parking situation at the Special Olympics? Is it still just the two spaces?

Men want the same thing from their underwear that they want from women: a little bit of support, and a little bit of freedom.

You are just not hearing well as statistics will embarrass you.

Too much of the rest of your rant is unworthy. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Wait a minute, wait a minute... to what are you objecting? What rant?

I'm not knocking "spirituality". What I was knocking was the claim of "spirituality" which doesn't seem to have anything behind it. As far as not going to the stars -- I'm not against it; I just don't think it is likely, given the physics required to do so.

Humankind is the center of human existence. Being tribal, we live vicariously through the music makers and share their spirit. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

"Man is the measure of all things." I don't have a problem with that.

A picture of N is worth a thousand words. But what if the picture is lying? Pictures lie? Sure--well, they can be manipulated. Using various techniques, a person can be made to be present in a photo who was actually not there. Or, someone who was actually present in the photo can be made to look like someone else, or to not be in the picture at all.

Have not people been mistaken in identifying pictures? Our perceptions and memories can be quite wrong. ("Eye witnesses" are quite often as good as blind.)

The trouble is, we are not ALWAYS right and we are not ALWAYS wrong. A perception may be 100% accurate: What you said you saw is true. But we are wrong often enough that we can not say, "I saw the picture. It was him, all right. There can be no doubt about it" as if it were incontrovertibly true.

It's too clumsy to condition every assertion we make. No one wants to always hear, or always say, "I am somewhat confident that what I said I saw is actually what I saw, and that my memory of seeing it has perhaps not been corrupted... and blah blah blah. Most of the time, if the stakes are low, we can tolerate, "he said he saw it; most likely he did. That's good enough." But if the stakes are higher, well then "I said I saw it" just isn't good enough.

But our assertions of fact have to be verified, preferably by more than one source and verification method. I can claim to have seen my old friends Abraham, Martin, and John, but if there is nothing but my report... well, proceed with caution.

So, what is the purpose of spirituality? — BrianW

From volatile compounds called spirits to ghosts to the reigning zeitgeist of a social movement to monks and nuns at prayer to the Eucharist to people who are vaguely spiritual to the Dalai Lama to God, to devout Lutherans and Zoroastrians, and more, "spirit" has many meanings and rhetorical uses. I don't know whether it "has a purpose" or "just is". I suspect more the latter. There is something about the world that is "spirit" and I will not attempt naming it.

I don't put "spirit" and "matter" in opposition.

Radix malorum est cupiditas. Cupidity, or greed for money or gold or... is the root of all evil. (Timothy 6:10). Ordinary people typically do not suffer from cupidity. They have to work hard to get the money they need to live, and they aren't in love with money. But, yes, some people do love money, or riches in some other form--maybe real estate, maybe status, that sort of thing.

"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end.” — Gnostic Christian Bishop

"Objection: What about snakes?" (Bernstein: Candide)

We may be the only lively planet. Maybe we are the only intelligent beings. Maybe our planet is one of millions, maybe we are one of many sentient species. Either way, it's amazing.

There are not many science fiction novels that deal with spirituality in any depth. There are a few. Presumably whatever spirit infuses this world, infuses the cosmos. It seems plain enough to me that this species is not going to experience the distant music of the spheres, it's spiritual nature. All the more reason for us to take note of spirit here.

I don't believe for a minute that many of the people who CLAIM to be spiritual are. It isn't that they are cardboard materialists. It's just that "spirituality" that has no form, no substance, no pattern, no antecedents, no consequences, but is just that vague thing, probably is an empty claim. When some dweeb blithely rejects religion on the grounds "I don't believe in religion -- I'm spiritual" I think they are full of stool. On closer examination one often finds that they have no idea what they mean. There is a lot to be said for formal religion -- and against it. I've said a good deal for and against The Church. But at least serious religion can give some understanding of spirituality to the people that will later scorn the church.

Some of the folks who stop by are interested in philosophy but also happen to be among the walking wounded. There are many walking wounded people in the world and they show up at forums, discussion groups, churches, political meetings, and the like. Some of them show up here--not the worst place to ask for help. Many of the walking wounded have been injured by one or more of the prevailing philosophies on which parts of the world run, so sometimes there is advice that can be given, advice that is safe and effective when taken with several grains of salt.

Quite often, whoever responds (or everybody who responds) tells them to "Get ye to a psychiatrist and be quick about it!" which is sometimes quite appropriate advice.

Other times people are looking for some sign of caring from another human being. They are sad, lonely, alienated, misinformed, ill-advised people who have been steered in the wrong direction. They need some direction. They've lost track of the star they were following.

Philosophy types (of the sort that hang out around this joint) ought to be able to respond to these people. If they can't be bothered, one has to wonder what the fuck they are good for.

The question of why certain words are considered offensive...and the extensions of that being the case... has more impact on life than most of the stuff being discussed here. — Frank Apisa

Much of what is discussed on this and similar sites has nothing to do with life as we know it.

I've now had a totally valid and reasonable thread eliminated completely (with no chance for any comments)...and a thread shut down from further comments for what I see as no reason whatsoever. — Frank Apisa

This might be a case of moderator over-reach, but who are you going to call? 911 doesn't deal with this problem.

Some of us have larger apertures for acceptable topics and language use than others. Our unpaid, long-suffering moderators probably tend toward the more restrictive approach -- else they would not serve well as moderators. We don't want golden retriever moderators who completely fail as watch dogs at the gates of our esteemed forum. On the other hand we don't want pit bulls. We probably don't want overly dutiful bloodhounds either. (As James Thurber noted about the dutiful bloodhound, "The paths of glory at least lead to the grave. The paths of duty don't lead anywhere at all.").

We don't want yappy terrier moderators either, frenzied barking all the time. What do we want? St. Bernards, perhaps. Big lummoxes capable of plowing through the tedious snow drifts of arid topics to dig out victims of philosophical hypothermia.

Other dog breeds?

When humans orgasm, they hardly ever (well, flat out never) moan "O Canada". But they often call out "O God!". It is probable that neither Canada nor God cares much about people's orgasms.

What it does not mean is that the weaklings are the good ones and the powerful are the bad guys — Matias

See here “The Superior Virtue of the Oppressed”, Bertrand Russell, 1937"

Also, the Golden Rule:

One of the problems I find in the current discussions about race, discrimination, and equality is this: A good many people start from the position that the oppressed have superior virtues, and that the oppressor can not have superior virtues. People who look like the ur-oppressor (white males) may feel guilty for everything that has been done to the oppressed -- even though they were neither perpetrators nor closer than third- or fourth-level beneficiaries.

A lot of what makes white people guilty about--slavery, Jim Crow, housing segregation, exclusion of various groups from prosperity, etc--in two words, pervasive prejudice, followed as a result of strategic disenfranchisement of groups of people by the ur-oppressor, aka, the ruling class.

Housing policy, managed by large property owners and functionaries of the ruling class--not by working class white people (who are not, by and large, a privileged group) has been one of segregation for well over a century. Segregation has generally not been accidental: it has been calculated and de jure, coast to coast. The poverty and social alienation of the excluded group becomes a threat to those who are just a short distance above them on the social ladder.

How? The real estate, banking, and political industries made sure that black areas of cities became slums, and that slum conditions would threaten stable neighbourhoods. All this is related to the desirability of a substantial population of unemployed people: the unemployed are a constant threat to those who might agitate for better conditions in the work place. "Shut up, or you will join the ranks of the impoverished unemployed."

So, in a nut shell: Yes, moral values and norms are not just "linked" to power. They are pretty much welded together. Judging "moral superiority" has to be separated from estimations of power. I don't approve of Trump's southern border policies, but I don't approve of the Central American dispossessed just marching across our borders en masse, either.

@Hanover

Yes, I read that and I recall we already went over the fact she wasn't legally incapacitated in which case the court cannot order any treatment. At least in the Netherlands. — Benkei

Someone "under the age of consent" has not yet been "capacitated". So, in the US a 17 year old could be compelled to receive a "72 hour hold" for observation. A person over the age of consent who appeared to be dangerous to self or others can also be ordered to accept a minimum of institutionalisation. @Hanover: True?

What good does a 72 hour hold do? It gives psych staff an opportunity to assess the person. Of course it is not curative. 72 hours is long enough for a person to calm down a bit, or clear some of whatever they're on to clear the system; maybe by the third day the world will look different to them.

I can see why someone might want help killing themselves. Some methods are quite effective; others are not. Females are more likely to choose drugs. I've read the Hemlock Society manual, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be able to complete their directions: "take all the pills you have and then drink a quart of whisky, gin, bourbon, or vodka--quickly. The alcohol will amplify the drugs." I can hardly swallow a tablespoon of straight alcohol, let alone a quart. Then there is the problem of nausea which can undo the effort one went to, and drugs can take enough time that one might be discovered, hauled off to ER, for a stomach pumping and antidotes. And then maybe one's brains will be much more scrambled than they were before.

To whom does one's life belong? Solely to one's self? I'm not sure that such is the case. There are usually "stake holders" in a person's life: Parents, children, siblings, friends, a community. Maybe one's stakeholders are one of the reasons one is looking for rope and a strong beam, but suicide is often a cruel blow to one's circle of family and friends (granted: not always).

what happens to those who do not believe that Jesus Christ is the son of God — christine

Needless to say I am agnostic — christine

.

What happens is that you go straight to hell. You do not pass go, you do not collect $200. You are doomed to an eternity of watching daytime TV. :naughty:

"Religion" for many Americans (and many people elsewhere) does not have much meaning. It isn't just a Christian thing, but let's stick to Christianity. In order for Christianity (or any other religion) to have meaning, a person needs to have a minimum level of understanding about what the religion teaches (like, "God is love"; "Love one another as I have loved you." "God expects you to do justice, love mercy, and walk humbly with God." and so on. It is essential to belong to a community of believers to gain deeper understanding of the religion.

A lot of people were born into families who were religious and never had to make a decision to learn about religion. They learned it from pre-school on up till the time they left home. Others grew up in families that were not religious, or were so lukewarm that they might as well have not been.

A Key Understanding: God is not religion. Religion is about God. God doesn't need religion--people do. If God wants to find you, he knows where you live. He doesn't need the church's help. Humans generally need help seeking out God, and that is what religion helps one do. If you are looking for God, join a welcoming church.

I found out that no one ever taught me how to be a human being. — virginia west

Of course you were taught how to be a human being. What? Are you a wolf child or something?

You started learning as soon as your mother and father cradled you in their arms, and started talking to you, fed you, and so on. You learned the language and the customs of your species (Homo sapiens), the appropriate emotional responses, how to make and read facial and body expressions, and so on.

You also have a certain amount of genetic programming. You were on your road to being a human being before you were born. Had you been the offspring of two kangaroos your genetic programming would have been quite different. You'd have that big tail and a much smaller brain than you have now.

what does it mean to be a human being? — virginia west

Human beings are able to answer your question. They may answer it with crude or elegant language, depending on how much education they have received and how much they've thought about it. One things is for sure: a kangaroo, no matter how educated or reflective, will never answer your question.

what does it mean to really think like a human being? — virginia west

You're doing it now. How does it feel?

Your brain is structured to think. It has various specialised areas that carry out certain functions. If you are not damaged or defective (shot in the head, brain tumour, etc.) then your brain will do its human thing and produce human type thoughts. The education you received (starting at birth, if not before) further shape how your brain thinks.

Of course by the time they reach their destination they would no longer be human. — Brett

Which, depending on one's perspective, is either a good or bad thing.

Thank you. I always try to maintain my reputation. BTW, I don't think I missed your point.

They returned to Europe (if that was possible) because the place failed to meet their expectations. They didn't return to Europe because they suddenly recognised themselves as tools of imperialism imposing on the civility of the native people who had been doing just fine until they arrived. [Full disclosure: I wouldn't have expected anybody to think they were tools of colonial imperialist powers.]

People always start out thinking they are doing "the Lord's good work", even when snatching somebody else's homeland. There are Biblical precedents for that, after all. And, we being the egotistical animals we are, usually persist in thinking we are doing good, even after the whole thing has blown up in our faces.

People are just not that reliably nice, when you get right down to it.

I've never been sexually abused or raped, so I do not know from personal experience how much trauma that can cause. Still, over a lifetime many of us are subjected to quite real traumatic experiences and their consequences with which we have to deal. I can be more philosophical about this than an adolescent (one would hope). I do believe there is a social element to trauma: How people react to one's trauma can aggravate or ameliorate it. Denying that a trauma occurred won't help, and neither will dilating on the awfulness of the trauma.

Getting good mental health care is essential; it might be a psychiatrist; it might be a parent; it might be a therapist; it might be peers, etc. And conversely, the same people can provide unhelpful care. One of the supposed benefits of a strong religious tradition is that it gives a traumatised person more beneficial contexts in which to place their suffering. (Of course, bad religion makes sexual trauma worse.). A strong secular ethical tradition can do the same thing too (positively and negatively).

It sounds like some of the agents that should have been on hand and helpful were either missing or were not helpful. Suicidal wishes (or euthanasia) should not be acceptable responses to trauma.

In about 10 weeks, I'll be 83. — Frank Apisa

I'll be only 73 this fall, but I'll forget when your birthday is coming up, so happy birthday now.

Youth is often revealed in posts, but old age doesn't seem to be. I'd have not even suspected you of being an octogenarian. Glad you're healthy and feeling good. Elderly healthy brains can deploy as much supple mind as younger people -- maybe more so. At least, IF they are a mind too. Some people get rigid in old age, but I think a brief history of their cases will reveal that they were getting rigid for a long time. As we have been, so we will be.

settlers on Earth always have the OPTION, however remote, of turning/going back. — Unseen

The chances of Homo sapiens sapiens (like Columbus) seeing a new and unexpected land and then sensitively turning back before first contact is made is vanishingly remote. It's just not like Homo sapiens to see an apple tree bearing ripe fruit and not taste it. If the apples taste good, we'll pick every last one of them and haul them home. We might even cut the tree down for fire wood.

What would it be about living on board a space ship that would change the passengers so that they would not be subject to discontent, tribalism, revolution, murder, patricide, mass murder, AND MORE!?

These tendencies would have to be suppressed before the space ship is built, before the destination is discovered. Life abroad the starship Enterprise under Picard was peaceful and purposeful because the tendency to discontent, tribalism, revolution, murder, patricide, mass murder (and more) had been trained out of human society. (somehow -- not explained in any of the episodes). And only trained out -- not bred out.

We (humans) do quite well when the stresses of life are well within tolerable limits. Our best traits can come forward and we can behave like Enterprise crew members: rational, reasonably patient, reserved, polite, caring, attending to our duties, etc. It's when stresses are beyond tolerable limits for extended periods of time that we begin to display our very unpleasant potentials.

IF the starship was provisioned with enough space to avoid the chronic stress of over exposure to each other, satisfying amusements, shared strong beliefs in the mission, secure and adequate resources to sustain life, etc. -- sure, I can see it all working out well.

But... the scenario explored in many fictional long space flights is that equipment breaks down, accidents degrade the quality of life, untimely (and natural) deaths of key people, and so forth can bring the whole happy scene to a screeching halt -- just as it has a million times here on this big round starship Earth. (We don't need bizarre viruses, ghastly aliens, or psychopaths to screw things up. All it takes is too many things going wrong.

If there is anything we know for sure, it is that machinery will break down inconveniently, and that the best laid plans of mice and men will eventually go awry.

Adrien Tchaikovsky (Children of Time and its sequel, Children of Ruin) explores some of these problems. A terraforming experiment prepared a raw planet to receive the seeds of earth-ecology. That part worked out well. It's a splendid place. Chimpanzees were to be the most intellectually advanced of species on the planet (no humans). The chimps were to be infected with a virus that would direct the apes to evolve toward much higher intelligence. By chance, the capsule carrying the monkeys crashed and burned, and the virus was released into the pristine environment. Jumping spiders and ants became infected with the virus, and over time (like... 10,000 years) the arthropods evolved into a space faring species--overcoming their natural predatory natures with considerable difficulty.

SCI Fi, of course. Fiction. But it demonstrates my point that one SHOULD know that things can, and probably will, go wrong.

Humans are what we are: primates with all sorts of emotional vulnerabilities capped by remarkable intellect. Both our strengths and weaknesses are deeply established. We are always doomed to a conflict between our equally vital limbic and pre-frontal cortex tendencies.

I don't think they should pay the price. But if they are born on board a starbound spaceship, they have no choice but to pay the price. As would each following generation.

Sort of like life itself, no?

Yes, life aboard ship would change them. Life on earth will change them. Change is the only constant (cliche) and as Ecclesiastes puts it, "time and chance happen to all". We are ever changing. You can never step in the same river twice, etc.

Where did that figure come from???

There are more than 393 million civilian-owned firearms in the United States, or enough for every man, woman and child to own one and still have 67 million guns left over.

Those numbers come from the latest edition of the global Small Arms Survey, a project of the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva.

The report, which draws on official data, survey data and other measures for 230 countries, finds that global firearm ownership is heavily concentrated in the United States.

The first few results from a "Noa Pothoven" query on Google were headlined with the transitive verb "euthanised". The Independent (UK), and others, described her death as self-inflicted.

If someone is intent on killing themselves, there is a good chance they will succeed. In the case of a depressed and abused adolescent, one would hope for more parental and medical resistance to the idea (which the doctor who refused showed).

I can imagine cases where a person with an intractable and terminal illness (Huntington's disease, advanced and extremely painful cancer...) has a good case for wishing to be dead. There are ways that assistance can be given to facilitate a more comfortable death (including good hospice care) and I suspect people find out how to deploy such means.

I don't think assisted suicide should be legalised, routinised, or institutionalised. Excellent hospice care, and expert psychiatric care are better options. Otherwise, leave it to DIY.

Are you afraid of death? — Frank Apisa

"I'm not afraid of death; I just don't want to be there when it happens." (Woody Allen). As one progresses through 'old age' death doesn't necessarily become a welcome prospect. But fact is, guys my age are far, far closer to death now than when we were 30 (according to actuarial tables). I mean, death feels closer. A lot of guys my age have already been dead for 10 years!

I don't know who you're quoting, but it isn't me. By being kept in the dark, they aren't even free to give an informed whine. — Unseen

Sorry; I didn't contextualise my comment enough.

There have been quite a few anti-natalist threads over time, some straight forward, some more devious, that always boil down to people being the victim of existence without their consent. The passengers on the L O N G journey to another star, even the nearest, would be composed of generations of people who hadn't signed up for the trip. Even if earth was dead 15 minutes after they left, it is doubtful that they would be grateful to find themselves the remnant of a species -- of the entire planet.

Fortunately we are not at any risk of putting people in this position, and almost certainly never will be. We are already in outer space, we already occupy a perfectly adequate planet, and even if we could get to another nice cozy planet, we would not be any smarter and soon we would have screwed over that celestial ball as badly as we have screwed over our present celestial abode.

No, I think it would be unethical to journey to another star system. We have a home; if we fuck it up, we do not deserve another.

Agree? — frank

No.

t's also important to recall that all human motives are rooted in the pleasure principle. If a society spends much of its resources making life comfortable for the weak and wretched, this will diminish the impetus towards self-improvement in the population.

This is just basic psychology. — frank

I assume you are trotting out this curdled milk of human kindness cheese dip as a devil's advocate exercise. The idea is that there is only so much goodness to go around, and if it isn't lavished on the people we like, then we are wasting it.

This is a sneaky anti-natalism thread, because the second generation of space travellers would face the same problem that everybody has faced on earth for a couple hundred thousand years. "I didn't ask to be born!" the angry teenager whines.

Right. You didn't. You didn't exist yet, so you couldn't ask. Or refuse, either. That's life. Get used to it.

Correct.

If you want to be safe from MAD (which term was coined before Ronald came along) you have to get rid of the means to achieve MAD -- nuclear weapons, whether launched from the air, the land, or the sea.

Some progress has been made in that direction, but even if the number of bombs on ready-to-launch missiles is an impoverished 400 or 500 per Russia and the US, that's enough to make life very difficult, if not impossible for everybody. (It isn't just the 1000 nuclear blasts and nuclear fallout; it's the fire storms that would be initiated by the atomic blasts that quite possibly would degrade the environment beyond survivability. Billions, trillions of tons of soot and dust carried aloft by the thermal columns could trigger the nuclear winter that people were afraid of just before global warming surfaced in the public angst machine.

How long would nuclear winter last? Oh, depending, maybe 5 to 10 years. 5 to 10 years Is more than enough for the world to eat its stored food and then slowly starve to death (all while dying of radiation poisoning, bad water, no infrastructure in working order, no internet, no cell phone service. We'd starve because it would be very difficult to bring enough crops to harvest to feed even a small fraction of the people.

(As I've often predicted, the masses will resort to cannibalism as soon as the Internet and cell service fails.). Cannibalism is repugnant, but keeping the most desirable people alive by feeding them the least desirable would be difficult to organise. I mean, how do you manage the logistical problems of mass cannibalism with so much infrastructure wrecked?

I for one am a full proponent of abolishing the 2nd Amendment — Maw

Another good idea. The 2nd Amendment outlived its utility, if it ever had any, a long time ago. Second Amendment Fetishism is a relatively recent disease -- decidedly post WWII.

BTW, how do you get "about 96 privately owned guns per 100 civilians"? I've read that there are around 200,000,000 guns in the US and that about a third of Americans own them. It would seem more like 2 guns per citizen. (And 2/3s don't own a gun. What's the cause of that 'sickly inability to use force'? Low testosterone, I suppose.

Rich people apparently never gnaw on chicken wings. — Frank Apisa

They have servants to do that for them.

Re: George III:

He probably had porphyria, which is a genetic disorder impairing the production of "heme" -- an essential element of red blood cells. One writer, trying to argue that George III wasn't insane said that he was merely "manic". Hypomania can be quite pleasant, but last time I checked, full blown "hypermania" is a red flag for mental illness. Acute porphyria can make one feel and be quite sick, including mental dysfunction.

Take the discussion of "nigger" elsewhere on the forum. It is a term of derision rooted in the history of enslaving Africans (at least in the West; whether slave traders and slave holders in the Middle East had similarly derisory terms, I don't know). 154 years after slavery was ended, far fewer years after crude and pervasive discrimination against blacks was greatly reduced, we can not use this term freely. Nobody can -- not blacks, not whites. It certainly gets used, but not without a lot of freight. Rappers may use its freighted (fraught) loading for one effect, white power groups use the term's loading for quite different purposes. Blacks may use it in conversation to communicate one meaning, whites may use it in conversation to communicate quite different meanings.

Black, African American, and Negro also have fraught meanings that can't be dismissed. The history of the term clings to them, just as it does to Anglo Saxon, English and White.

The reason "fuck" has a much more casual decorum rating than "elbow" is its history. Words have histories, and their histories cling to them from generation to generation. The words we consider "too casual for formal settings" (like fuck, shit, asshole, pussy, cock, etc.) have been in use (in English, with equivalent words in other languages) since at least the transition from Old English to Middle English around 700-900 years ago. Chaucer's Miller's Tale is pitched low brow enough for those words to be OK. Chaucer's Nun's Tale was pitched at a high brow level. [Chaucer's 15th century readers would, of course, have been high brow.]. In the Nun's Priest's tale about Chanticleer (a lusty chicken) Chaucer chooses more decorous language. Rather than fucking Pertelote, Chanticleer "feathered" her.

He feathered Pertelote in wanton play
And trod her twenty times ere prime of day.

In some passages of classic Greek literature, "plowing a furrow" is a more polite term than fucking.

So, why do people set up (and enforce) categories of high brow, mid brow, and low brow? It has something to do with class. People with power (social, economic, hierarchical, etc.) generally prefer to control those with less power, and that includes policing the "brow" of proceedings. So high brow tends to go along with those who have power, and low brow tends to go along with those who have very little power.

TENDS -- not a rule. Richard Nixon had plenty of power, but in the privacy of the Oval Office he used plenty of very low brow language. But, important qualification, this was in the company of peers, NOT inferiors. Lyndon Johnson also had plenty of power, and he also tended to use quite a bit of low brow language, and not just among his inner circle.

The group who is touchiest about language is the middle-class mid-brow grouping. Middle class people (and here I mean aspiring to achievement, but not secure in their material accomplishments) very much want to use the language of the more powerful group above them, and bask in that kind of decorum. Unfortunately for this middling, mid-brow group, they often have fairly recent origins in the low class, low brow level--the memory of which they very much want to forget. So strivers, aspirers, upward reaching people are often the fussiest about policing decorum and language.

What's ahead? If I were you, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for language etiquette rules to disappear. The sanctioned words might change, but the top honchos will still be policing language the riff raff gets to use in public.

Well, there is the matter of decorum. It isn't that "fuck" or "shit" are "adult words" and coitus and faeces are not. The former words are appropriate for one level of decorum and the latter are appropriate for another level. I would not expect that a doctor would ask me "Are you shitting OK?" I'd expect him to reference faeces and bowel movements. On the other hand, "Shit!" would be the appropriate response to a diagnosis of terminal cancer. Or "fucking shit" would be the appropriate term at a bar to reference something really stupid.

Policing adult language, as well as enforcing "political correct" language falls into he category of "boor control" or "controlling other people" or maintaining a "quality atmosphere". I disapprove of that sort of shit. But... some people can get away with it and some can't.

we should greatly limit gun ownership or better yet, just ban them outright. — Maw

Your proposal is a good idea. I'm in favour. However...

There are something like ... 200 million guns in the US. 100 million people own guns. Despite the absurdly large number of guns, the location and circumstances of killings is fairly circumscribed. There is a concentration of killings in zip codes that have high rates of poverty and marginality. Are the white guys doing the group killings mentally ill, terminally alienated, totally outraged, or what? I don't know, but it seems axiomatic that they aren't 'normal'. After all, we live in a society that is a regular factory of insanity, alienation, and rage. We can be thankful, I suppose, that most white guys who are at the end of their rope kill themselves rather than somebody else.

I really don't know if there is any way to address the individual problems of MI, alienation, and rage. As for dealing with these problems collectively, doing so would be revolutionary. I don't see any revolutions on the horizon.

I don't see much likelihood of retrieving at least 200,000,000 guns. Do you?

True enough, but I think this animal is equally representative of our blighted species:

Jackass

"When will America stop?" Or "Will America stop?" Oh... probably not.

The vast majority of Americans are remarkably non-violent. But, as noted, "the hood" accounts for a lot of the gun violence, and "the hood" is, in many cases, a behavioural sink. So, there you find -again- a small numbers of anti-social agents who account for a larger than proportional share of shooting and knife deaths (guns being more effective when used as directed).

As it happens, multiple death shootings are far, far more news worthy than thug shooting thug in the slums so are given lavish coverage. A thug's wild shot killing a baby in its crib inside a house is exquisitely appalling too, so that gets fairly good coverage. Otherwise, who cares? 12 bodies in one batch in Virginia Beach or 12 bodies over the weekend in Chicago's slums? No comparison in news value.

The urge to kill is, possibly perhaps maybe, universal but 99.9% of us are able to suppress that itchy urge. .1% (1/10 of 1%) are prone to pulling the trigger.

I'm not quite sure what ails killers. Around a third of Americans own guns, and very very few murders -- individual or group packages -- are carried out by these 100 million people (and I say that as a devoted foe of the NRA).

"Political Correctness", "the left", "the Right", are all a bit difficult to discuss because the terms are too fluid. We put the fluid terms in our squirt guns and aim as well as we can.

It seems to me that there is no necessary link between "the left" and "the right" these days. As American politics go, what I call "the left" (socialist organizations such as the Socialist Workers Party, Communist Party USA, Socialist Labor Party, et al) became moribund since... the 1970s -- at least 40 years ago. These organizations were based on Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, DeLeon, et al), had party discipline, had specific and stable views on economic and social issues, and published their views, and had larger and smaller participation rates over time -- the peak being the Great Depression, probably.

"The Right" has been a more or less consistent and cohesive interest group since at least the Great Depression. They generally occupied the conservative wing of the Republic Party, but have not always dominated it. There were once "liberal Republicans" too, and they were at one time dominant.

"The Left", such as it is today, is not a party -- it's a pronoun. The Right, on the other hand, is cohesive, organize, consistent, and in power. "The Right" opposed Social Security in the 1930s, Medicare / Medicaid in the 1960s, and enthusiastically helped end Welfare As We Know it under William Clinton. They did not disappear after Bill Clinton. They continued under Bush II, didn't disappear under Obama, and are here with Trump. Koch Brothers weren't around in 1934 but but they've been active in the last 20.

"The rich Right" knows what side of the bread their butter is on, and they work consistently and effectively to keep the butter as thick as possible. They are pretty successful. I doubt if "the rich Right" spends any time at all worrying about "the left", especially the pronominal left that is just a place holder for some disenchanted college students. Their hired political operatives might bait the academic non-entities to get them to act out, but beyond that, "who cares what they think?". Environmentalist are a manageable concern, and crazy crypto-fascist groups are annoying, but pose no risk apart from smelling bad. (The rich gentile folks in Germany had no particular problems with the Nazis. Nazis, Schmatzies. What do you all, Sieg Heil und Heil Hitler, want to buy these days?)

I'm fairly certain that most of the jabberwockies on "The Left" do not know shit from shineola when it comes to political and social analysis. The old leftists knew much more. Mostly they play word games. BORING.

In this time and place, feudal regimes are not at all suitable. Indeed, the world became too complicated for such systems a long time ago. My "realistic regime" would be something like what countries have had for the last century, more or less: complex bureaucracies capable of responding to complex problems.

Of course, it matters what the animating spirit of the bureaucracy is. The Nazis had efficient bureaucracies, but their animating spirit was rather black. The US had a humanely spirited bureaucracy in the 1960s and 1970s, but under Reagan and Clinton the bureaucracy became less humane in some ways. It hasn't become more humane in the last 20 years (2000-2020).

Generally, conservative tending regimes tend to be less humane than liberal tending regimes.

You say: "Never mind about examples. I know ALL ABOUT IT from personal experience." Which means: "I don't want to talk about what you're talking about, I want to talk about what I want to talk about, so shut up and listen". — tinman917

Sorry. Quite often text comes across as harsher than verbal communication in person does. One would soften the effect of the same words with expression. What I meant to say, softly, is that after paying taxes for 5 decades and seeing how it works on a person to person basis, I understand what you mean.