Once you get beyond a few people bartering potatoes or apples for socks or mittens, a market, large, small, free or otherwise, can not exist without organization. Generally, political institutions (however primitive or advanced). Rules, a currency, and some sort of policing are all required for an open, free market to exist.

This might be obvious, but "democracy" is a political system and markets are economic systems. they don't have to go together, though they usually do. China has some elements of a free market, but is not a democracy by any stretch. The US has some elements of a free market and is more like your oligarchy with democratic decor.

One could have an industrial democracy (workers own it all) and a free market where workers are also consumers. (Almost everyone in any society either is a worker or was a worker before they retired.) By buying Coca Cola instead of Shasta cola, consumers vote for Coke. By buying bacon and pork chops they vote for swine and red meat. Let them eat tofu if they must.

Of course, you will object that good training is not groupthink. — SophistiCat

Groupthink is groupthink is groupthink, whether sponsored by the state, the corporation, the church, the school board, the editorial board of the New York Times, Fox News, or Pravda. Still, some types of group think are probably better than others. I'd like to think that the top Gestapo leaders might have achieved a worse groupthink than, say, the West Cupcake PTA. But... maybe not.



Well, yes -- suppressing all fire has had the consequence of fuel buildup. And drought has made even planned burned fires very dangerous; tricky, at the very least. Insect damage shouldn't be underestimated. Throughout western North America, various insects have been spreading diseases that kill conifers by the million. Global warming has resulted in less winter die-off of these insects.

Trump has a point on this score: if you include where people build homes and towns as part of forest management, then people have been putting themselves in harm's way. Building into canyons, ridges, and mountain sides covered with trees is attractive, if there is enough rain to keep everything nicely watered. Unfortunately, the long hot drought in CA has foiled that part of the plan.

Some people from Paradise, CA are hell-bent on rebuilding. Well, maybe it just isn't a good idea to rebuild in harms way.

When (not if) the shit hits the fan, a bunker will be of little use. Unless you could build a bunker like the Chad Mitchel Trio sang about in the 1960s...

Hammacher Schlemmer is selling a shelter
Worthy of Kubla Kahn's Xanadu dome
Plushy and swanky with posh hanky-panky
That affluent yankees can really call home

Hammacher Schlemmer is selling a shelter
A push-button palace, fluorescent repose
Electric devices for facing a crisis
With frozen fruit ices and cinema shows

Hammacher Schlemmer is selling a shelter
Of chromium kitchens and rubber tile dorms
With waterproof portals to echo the chortles
Of weatherproof mortals in hydrogen storms

Bear in mind that the most comforting time on the Doomsday Clock was 17 minutes before midnight in 1991--when the Soviet Union collapsed. Were we any safer from nuclear weapons that year than in any other? Not really.

If you are a pessimist, then one is likely to think that we are screwed -- now or sometime in the next 20, 30, 50, or 100 years. There are any number of threats--some natural, some manmade, some a combination. We could reduce or even eliminate some of these threats, but doing so requires that pigs fly. We could get rid of nuclear weapons. That's very, very unlikely. We could suddenly and sharply (like, really slam the brakes on) reduce carbon emissions, but that would in itself be a crisis for many people. High carbon emissions are woven into the world economy. Those with the most to lose (their lives) have little individual power, and those who would only lose wealth are very powerful.

How the details will work out of us all being screwed remains to be seen. It will, certainly, be VERY INTERESTING.

When the English started colonizing North America, they found the forests "park like". Why? Because the aboriginal people had used controlled burns to manage the forests for their own convenience. Hunting in a park-like environment happened to be a hell of a lot easier than hunting in a forest clotted with a lot of undergrowth.

But the situation in California is not the same as the east coast or Finland, for that matter. As you pointed out, it's the difference in rainfall, temperature, and climate. Most of California is fairly arid, except at higher elevations (which is where their snow falls, melts, and supplies them with water for irrigation, household, and industrial use.

There has been an extensive die-off of trees from a combination of insect infestations and drought. I don't know whether the age and species of the millions of dead trees would make them economically useful or not, and certainly it would be safer to remove them. But California is a large area, about 164,000 square miles. It isn't all forested, of course, (81,188 sq km, 31,34 square miles are forested) and brush and grasses, which covers a lot of the remaining area, can burn quite hot too, and spread to the built environment. In addition, thanks to plate tectonics, California is a very wrinkled up place, which makes forestry more difficult.

You would have to be old to remember the National Defense Education Act (NDEA). It is quite novel to see the NDEA blamed for Trump's election. Let one old guy give a suggestion to another old soul: dig deeper.

Independent thinking without education is even more likely to lead to groupthink, and groupthink has been around since... before the last ice age, at least. A nicer word is "consensus". It isn't just Trump and the Republicans. It's the Democrats too. Both parties (in their varying manifestations) have had a tight lock on politics for a long time. The lock probably got tighter after the Civil War when conservative Democrats took over from liberal Republicans in the south (after reconstruction). There has been a lot of unquestioned groupthink in American politics.

I loathe Donald Trump, but I am not fond of the Clintons either. But remember: Trump didn't win by a landslide, and what made Trump possible is a media culture that has been developing since before the NDEA. It is difficult to disentangle actual, sociological facts on the ground from the various political, social, entertainment, and economic representations of the facts. Take HRC's use of the term "deplorables" aka, white trash. Working class whites--especially the least skilled, least educated, least wealthy, whites--have been white trash since before the English colonization of North America. They might actually be WASPS, but they still count as white trash.

The "deplorables" have, with good reason, developed a lot of resentment against the east coast establishment (whites, almost all) for giving them the shaft over the last 50 years (ever since the post WWII boom ended in the early 1970s). Trump is 100% part of that east coast establishment, just with a lot more crass than class. Clinton would have done no big favors for the white working class poor any more than Trump has.

There were good reasons why National Socialism found fertile soil in Germany. Germany lost WWI and had their defeat shoved down their throats. German resentment was deep. There are 19th century contributions for some of this, like resentments in France towards Germany after France last the Franco Prussian war of 1870. The post WWI period was particularly bad for Germans, and Hitler turned the key. You know, the USA had a strong right-wing reaction after WWI too--the Red Scare. Had we gone into a severe depression after WWI, politics in the US might have been a lot nastier.

Bitter Crank, gorilla or guerilla? — ssu

Fucking homonyms. Fucking auto-correct.

When you want to quote somebody, highlight the text and then click on the word "Quote" that will appear next to the highlighted text. This accomplishes two things: it tells the reader who you are quoting, and if the reader clicks on the name quoted, the reader will be taken to the post from which the quote was taken. The second thing using "Quote" does is send a message to the person quoting stating that so and so has quoted you.

Same thing for responding to a post. Clicking on the left-pointing arrow under the post notifies the person to whom you are responding that you have made a comment.

if we lived in an ideal world where people tried things out in good faith, I would have no objection to this route. — romanv

No matter what we do--keep the old system, try a new one, or have a bloody revolution and end up in chaos--some people will not be acting in good faith. That's just a given. There are liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels in every society, and they tend to fuck things up.

Perhaps the environment is better in the USA, but you cant trust the UK government to look into this reform fairly. — romanv

NO NO, the environment is NOT better in the USA. The two parties have an iron grip on the status quo. I'm not sure that god can loosen their death grip.

We could judge the morality of an act on a flat plane: all sentient life is equal; no species is superior; every individual creature matters equally; you and a penguin are equally valuable. Humans (who devise morality) do not judge morality that way. We arrange it on a vertical scale where some creatures are more valuable than others.

The best we can do (given our predilection for placing ourselves at the top) is give sincere respect to other creatures.

In the case of guerrilla Harambe, we value the boy's life more than the guerrilla's life. Guerrillas are inordinately strong, and even if Harambe didn't intend harm, he (she?) might have accidentally killed the child.

Was it better for Harambe to be in a zoo, or should Harambe have been left in the forest? If guerrilla's homelands are being destroyed for agriculture, is it better to have a few guerrillas in zoos or none at all?

Hypothetical: If there are, all totaled, 10,000 guerrillas and elephants left, would we consider it moral and just to guarantee the two species' survive in perpetuity IF we killed 10,000 people? A difficult choice, maybe, if you knew any of the 10,000 people. But I grieve the loss of intelligent animals, including humans. But there are 7.5 billion of us, and so few guerrillas and elephants. And so few whales, and so on.

Your theory accounts for a good many FSM Syndrome subjects. A desire to feel superior is not the only etiology of atheists who feel a need to pick on theists.

Bertrand Russell observed that many atheists bring to their atheism the style of their former belief. So, formerly Catholic atheists will have a flavor that differs from formerly fundamentalist atheists. A wishy-washy Christian or Moslem will become a wishy washy atheist.

Backgrounder paragraphs:

Maximum Christianity occurred in the United States around 1960. Professed belief, church attendance, participation in church activities, vocations (priests, nuns, monks), and so forth were all solid. Then, for reasons not fully understood, the tide turned. There was an across-the-board walkout--affecting Protestant and Catholic congregations alike. The Methodist Church, for instance, lost 5 million members during the decade of the 1960s. Nuns departed the convents in droves. Attendance at services and church activities started sliding, continues to slide, and, for the most part, does not recover.

Are there large, robust, well financed Protestant and Catholic parishes? Yes, particularly in the suburbs. The massive post WWiI suburbanization that was engineered by the FHA and banks produced a somewhat homogenized, white-segregated population that lacked the rootedness of the former urban arrangement. Ethnicity, which had been an important binder and source of vitality in the old urban parishes, was diluted and mixed in the new suburban parishes.

Now we have a large cohort of people who have either never been members of a church, or haven't been members of a church for a long time. A large share of these people are what I would call "functional atheists" -- they might not call themselves atheists, they may not take upon themselves the name "atheist", and they might admit to being agnostic (which is a cop-out term IMHO). They aren't so much hostile to religion as much as deaf to religion.

It's the atheists who reacted to strong belief, like atheists that came out of a strong Catholic or Protestant backgrounds, that are most likely to be snarky, snide, and sneering. The atheists that came out of wishy washy backgrounds just don't care enough to attack belief.

A gay Catholic friend (who trained for the priesthood but left after being subjected to an alcoholic superior) noted that the pickiest critics of Catholic liturgy are those that have become non-believers. Oddly, thy want the ritual to be fastidiously high church. I've seen this in Protestant churches too -- Lutherans and Anglicans, particularly, which inherited and maintained high church liturgy (smoke and bells).

Your situation, with respect to standing up in the no-man land between believers and atheists, is not unique. The same thing happens in far leftist circles, where the followers of various venerable brands of Marxism unite to shoot down anyone who tries to negotiate common ground. My guess is that vicious infighting goes on among old-style psychoanalysts. Some people just like obscurantist battles. Lots of specialists can not stand deviation.

Do try to grow a thicker skin for your own sake. (Easy advice to hand out. ME? a few patches of thick skin with lots of vulnerable, thin pink skin just waiting for a lashing of nettles.)

I am in favor of experimenting with a "NOTA option. The experiment can be carried out in local elections first -- city councils, mayors, and the like. It may be that the state would have to approve a change such as this for statewide offices. Minneapolis, for instance, started "ranked choice" voting a few years ago, where one can vote for first choice, second choice, or third choice (if a choice exists -- which it does fairly often. Counting the votes is more complicated for ranked choice.).

IN a sense, many people do vote for NOTA by not voting at all, but a NOTA slot on the ballot would make for much clearer meaning: No! I don't like the choices offered.

A consequence of NOTA should be that the political conventions (at whatever level) would take more care in choosing candidates--candidates that had a better chance of exceeding the minimum number of confirming votes.

I would have voted for NOTA fairly often in the past, had it been available.

It isn't clear to me what you are asking. Can you clarify, please?

What do we call a non-simple thing? — musicpianoaccordion

Complex? Complicated? Multifactorial?

One of the reasons "Most men [and women] lead lives of quiet desperation" is that they are adding too many parts to their lives: Too many things, too many activities, too many people, etc. "Things are in the saddle; getting and spending we lay waste our powers" etc.

Simplify, simplify, simplify.

Getting the empty things and activities and maybe empty people as well) out of our lives is critical to living a simpler life. A simpler life generally produces more life, as long as it is voluntary and directed towards fullness of life.

Just my simple opinion, of course,

But why do so many atheists/agnostics feel some need to disrespect the theist position? — Rank Amateur

Did that drawing disrespect the theist position? The cover of John Fry's book The Great Apostolic Blunder Machine has a drawing of a church presented as a chugging steam engine. Fry is quite scathing in his criticisms of the church, but is himself a committed Christian, one who is dissatisfied with the church. Nothing new about people being dissatisfied with the church. It's perennial.

I like satirical, mocking stuff--religion politics, people in general. That's one motivation.

Some people receive no religious education, direction, or encouragement. They are atheists by default. Most people do receive religious education in various degrees, and have varying degrees of involvement. From the group of religious, some will eventually (sooner or later) reject their religious background. This group tends to be the most hostile towards theism. They feel burnt by religion (burned in some way; disappointed; disturbed by inconsistencies; offended, etc.). They want to demonstrate that they are no longer theist.

Fairly late in life (in my 40s) I reached a point of formally rejecting theistic belief, and religion in general. Christian theology, however, was too central to my thinking to be tossed overboard. It was the 'operating system' whether I liked it or not. Putting psychological distance between me and the church has always been a necessary but tricky procedure. Lots of cognitive dissonance and ambiguity.

I'm not generally hostile towards theism, but I do tend to be hostile towards certain presentations of theism. Rigid dogmatism irritates me. Some/many/most/??? of the doctrines of the church have ceased to hold water. For instance, I have never understood the necessity of the Trinity and have yet to hear a good explanation for this doctrine. I'm pretty sure the church could get along without the trinity.

I actually am a member of a church -- Lutheran -- and contribute time and energy--cleaning, helping in the kitchen, serving meals at a shelter, stuff like that. The church I joined is literally across the street; my late partner was an active member, and after he died I felt I needed to establish more social contacts.

Christianity is, of course, a critical part of western civilization and it can't and shouldn't be disentangled. One of the lamentable aspects of a decline in religious education and knowledge is that many people are missing a major chunk of information about the culture in which they live. Most religions -- not all, in my opinion -- make positive contributions to society; Christianity does. Of course, not everything it contributes is positive, which is true of other religions too -- or technology, science, secular institutions, etc.

Apparently she felt we needed one.

Is it possible for us to fulfill Christ's commandments? If not, why? — NuncAmissa

In the Christian view, nothing is possible without god, and all things are possible with god. So... yes, it's possible if god wills it -- which he presumably does.

Now, outside of the Christian view, I don't think it is possible for human beings to fulfill (that is, meet fully) Jesus's commands. There is no reason, however, for Christians to not try. There is no reason for anyone, Christian, pagan, heathen, atheist, Buddhist, Moslem, Jain, Hindu, Shinto, etc. to not try to be as decent to each other as we can be. How decent we can be is depressingly slight a good share of the time.

The kind of love we are called upon to demonstrate is, I think, agape -- selfless love. I don't find myself confused by the use of "selfless love" and Christ's command to "love your neighbor as yourself". I don't know what verb Jesus used -- it definitely wasn't agape because he presumably did not speak Greek, even Koine Greek. I presume he spoke Aramaic. Loving someone else like you love yourself means being as generous to them as you are to yourself. One has to get one's own self-focused interests out of the way to love someone else that way. We aren't asked to exist selflessly -- a flat out impossibility. We are asked to be selfless sometimes; once in a while; maybe we will be called upon to be selfless once every two years; or maybe twice a day--Depends on where we are in life.

In another passage (Matthew 24) Jesus said we will be judged on whether we assisted the sick, the prisoner, the thirsty, naked, the poor, and so forth. That if we did not it would be as if we had failed to assist Christ in his needs. Selfless love, loving the neighbor as one's self, and giving assistance to those in need all fit together.

Periodically one meets someone in actual, plain, physical need. They are ordinary people in need, not professional beggars (who, of course, have problems too). If we avoid doing anything for these people in need, then we flatly fail the tests across the board. 9 time out of 10, heroic measures are not needed. But still, we find it hard to lift a finger to help.

I would guess that Jesus was aware of the gap between perfect love and the performance ordinary humans were going to give. Jesus didn't have a lot of time (assuming he had some idea of how short his future was). He didn't have time to encourage life-time growth in the disciples. Long range goals were out of the question. For jesus the time is now. "If not me, who; if not now, when?"

Of course, in the Christian scheme there is God for whom all things are possible, and if God wills it, then we can accomplish more than we might think.

We should always avoid thinking in warm fuzzy terms about love. As I said, and others have said, "Love is hard." Loving other people is not at all easy for us, but it is something we can strive toward. Jesus wasn't talking about romantic love, or mother-child love, or eros; it's agape he was talking about.

Do we must do it or no? — Artie

or Must we do it or not?

Love is hard. Loving one's self is hard. Loving someone else with the same regard we have for ourselves is hard. As hard (difficult) as it might be, love is the answer.

I'm sorry, but I have an aversion to reading groups of any kind. Don't know why.

I think Mr. Musk should mind his several businesses and leave the universe alone.

Thanks for the wine suggestions BTW. — Posty McPostface

Bear in mind that I rarely drink wine, so take it with several grains of salt (the advice, not the wine).

My musings with you on this forum indicate that you are no longer a bitter crank. — Posty McPostface

That's because a real person is behind the Bitter Crank conspiracy and the real person changed. A test: If you, or I, were to write under our real names, would we say the same thing? I would, because I don't have an alter ego. What you see is what you get. Is your real self better at wallowing than Posty? Is Posty smarter than you? I doubt it.

I have thought about creating an alter ego, an imaginary Me, who would be quite a bit different than me. Suaver, cleverer, smarter, taller, handsomer, better read, fluent in German and French, more athletic, younger, sexier, etc. But it's very hard to pretend to be smarter than one is. One has to actually have more brains to understand how to be smarter. Until the upgrades come out, I'll just have to put up with as many smarts as I have.

So, you concede — Posty McPostface

I concede nothing. A real person is writing your posts.

I wonder... do I even have enough processing power and band width to create and maintain an alter ego? I'm pretty much what you see is what you get.

A Liebfrauenmilch (Virgin Mary's Milk) would be good. A sweet sherry? Some people like a sweet, dark vermouth with ice and soda (sparkling water). A sweetish Portuguese Rose? Perhaps a Cask of Amontillado--goes well with roasted Poe. Asti Spumante is a sparkling white italian wine. Good for fast relief, because of the carbonation.

My opinion of dry, tart wines is that nobody actually likes them, but people pretend that dry, sour slop is a sign of sophisticated taste. It isn't. It's a sign of incipient alzheimers. Plus, if you're putting on a reception you don't have to buy as much because nobody will ask for a refill. Now, if you serve a slightly sweet champaign, people will hover around the serving table until they are quite tipsy, or can barely walk.

I generally drink too much at receptions where there is something drinkable and a generous pour, but that's what is required for me to socialize with strangers. I always needed two beers at the bar before I could start chatting up prospective tricks for the night. Two beers, good. Three beers, great. Four beers, divine. Five beers, express to danger zone. Six beers stumbling drunk oblivion. No point in taking me home cuz I won't be able to do anything anyway. So I aimed for four.

In another forum far away and long ago, @Banno started a discussion similar to this one, is the divine stallion Pegasus, wings, hooves, balls, and all real? How about Frodo? Han Solo? the apostle Jack? Jesus, not to mention the esteemed Posty McPostface?

I know who Frodo, Han Solo, Pegasus, Jack, Jesus, and you do too. You may not have met them, but you know who they are. You even know a thing or two about them. They are real because they exist in the memories and thoughts of many people, including yours. You don't know who Xcwevw is. I don't either. He, she, it, or nothing doesn't exist in my mind or anybody else's.

Every shared name, handle, referent, moniker, or image that identifies an author connects to something real.

Yes, I realize there is no one named Posty McPostface and Posty McPostface stand in-between me and thee. And your handle isn't the same as Frodo's handle, because Frodo is a fictional character. Try as you might, YOU are not a fictional character. Somebody living in 1k. CA disguises himself as Posty. Somebody else in the now freezing northland disguises himself as Bitter Crank.

No, because it doesn't denote me, the actual person posting under this nick. — Posty McPostface

If you handle doesn't reference you, the actual person, then who is writing all those great posts?

Sister Hilda and her Experimental Theology Apparatus

all I can afford nowadays is beer — Posty McPostface

Beer is safe and effective when used as directed. But then, so is gin, vodka, whiskey, bourbon, wine, schnapps, ale, rum, benzodiazepines, cannabis, poppy in its various forms, etc.

Really cheap beer, and 3.2 beer just isn't worth the calories. I like a pilsner or lager. IPAs are just too hoppy for my taste. Too bitter for old crank.

yes, predictably I would say a lie is a lie. — Rank Amateur

And that's fine. Even if I am much more tolerant of "socially appropriate lying" or white lies than you are, and won't be availing myself of the confessional when I do lie, I do think it is important that the liar know within his own head whether he is telling the truth or not. I might be willing to lie, cheat, and steal, but I think it essential that I be clear in my own head that I am lying, cheating, and stealing, to whom, about what, and why.

Pagans and heathens, like Christians, Jews, and Moslems, want peaceful orderly societies. "Following the rules" helps achieve peace and order. Sometimes though, peace and order can be better promoted by not uttering inflammatory truths, but instead by uttering misleading lies. So, "I deeply regret that I will be unable to attend the reception in honor of your visiting Prime Minister. Unfortunately, I am indisposed with a very unpleasant virus." IS BETTER THAN "I wouldn't attend your gathering of liars, thieves, knaves, and scoundrels under any circumstances, and the sooner you are all put out of business, the better." The latter might be the truth, but the former will maintain peace and order better.

(Even as a pagan / heathen who doesn't have to go to confession, I generally avoid lying, cheating, and stealing; as well as arson, rape, and bloody murder, to mention a few. These activities complicate one's life too much, what with investigations, prosecutors, grand juries, buying off witnesses, arranging for jail breaks, bribing judges, and so on.)

Telling a lie is never a moral act, and I and Aquinas and others would agree with Kant — Rank Amateur

I suppose you, Tom, Manny, et al think that a lie is a lie is a lie? That there is no variety of lies? That intent has no bearing? That a lie about whether one likes cats, and a lie about where the Jews are hiding have equal gravitas?

A lie of convenience - "Mom, there's somebody at the door -- let me call you back." (Nobody at door. You just didn't want to continue listening to your mother complain about her sister) surely is not the same as lying about one's income to the Internal Revenue Service?

A protective lie - Is it better to lie about your one night stand, or tell your spouse the brutal truth which will be very painful for her to hear? The event in question is now a year in the past, you transmitted no infections, there was no bastard birth, or other consequences?

An enhancing lie - Is it better to not exaggerate (lie) about how much one did in one's Peace Corps job in Nigeria--and get hired, or should one be frank and tell the interviewer that your 2 years in Nigeria was a total waste of everyone's time? You have a family to support, and there aren't many jobs in your field?

A diplomatic lie - also called diplomatic influenza - is it better to tell the Russian ambassador that you personally hate his guts and wouldn't hesitate to run over him, should your limo have the opportunity; or should you tell him that you won't be able to attend the reception because your are ill--cough cough; everyone at the State Department has been sick lately?

Conversely, the truth as betrayal: Your best friend reported that he arrived at work on time the previous night. He was on duty for the whole shift. You know, for a fact, that he was 2 hours late, left an hour early, and was badly hungover for the entire time he was getting paid. He wasted the whole shift. You report him to his supervisor and he gets fired. You've lost a good friend; your friend was an otherwise very good employee. What good did your truth-telling accomplish?

Not sure why my post was deleted. I'm new here. If my post is not up to standard, please let me know where or how it should be improved.

Suppose a murderer is at your door and asks you where your friend is. Your friend is hiding in your house, but the murderer is going to kill him. Should you tell the truth? — Happiness

Your post is fine. IF there was any reason for your post to be deleted, it might be that a moderator remembered another thread on exactly the same topic. I'm not a moderator but I don't consider different people writing similar posts to be terribly problematic, unless there are close together in time.

Telling the truth, in this case, would result in at least one murder: your friend's murder first, and then yours next (you would be a witness). There is no good in such a decision. Lie, by all means. Cheat and steal, if need be, to protect a person in your care from harm. [and in my argument I am assuming your friend is as innocent as a lamb]

The trouble with moral formulae is that they are too rigid. They may have positive consequences here, but immensely negative consequences there. I think we have to account for circumstances and consequences.

Would it be moral to preemptively shoot the would be murderer? If you couldn't get him off your front step by lying, and if you had the means at hand, perhaps. At some point the situation would evolve where you could predict what was going to happen. For instance, if the murderer barges past you into your house and begins searching, the negative outcome is predictable. At that point, it seems to me, you would be more moral in killing the killer than standing by gripping your copy of Kant.

In this world, we all have "dirty hands"; we are all implicated directly or indirectly in immoral acts, if not outright immoral acts. We may be called upon to do good with those dirty hands. So, you might have to kill or crudely disable the murderer to save your friend. (we are assuming the friend is an innocent fellow.

It gets more complicated if you know your friend isn't innocent. Maybe he also is a murderer. Maybe the murderer on your front step is the husband of the woman your friend killed. I still say lie, because in this case your friend owes the State a confession, or exculpatory evidence. If you let the murderer in, justice will be forfeit, since carrying out justice is the prerogative of the State and not individuals.

My pragmatic Catholic answer, would be save the innocent from the evil with all that is needed to do that, understand that the act is sinful, head to confession. — Rank Amateur

Good. You will protect the innocent through sin and then seek absolution. You are willing to dirty your hands (if they weren't already dirty) to carry out good.

If hating your brother makes you a murderer (according to 1 John) we have to recognize that the bar of goodness has been set very, very high, and that killing the murderer, we would fall into sin.

Homo Ludens is a book written in 1938 by Dutch historian and cultural theorist Johan Huizinga. It discusses the importance of the play element of culture and society. Huizinga suggests that play is primary to and a necessary (though not sufficient) condition of the generation of culture. The Latin word Ludens is the present active participle of the verb ludere which itself is cognate with the noun ludus. Ludus has no direct equivalent in English, as it simultaneously refers to sport, play, school, and practice.[2]

Stop talking about playing and just play. Play with a cat. Play with a dog. Play with a child. Play with an adult. Play. Then quit screwing around and get back to work, or you're all FIRED.

I also have a psychotic disorder (formerly diagnosed as schizophrenia) and anxiety. — Posty McPostface

Did I mention that I have struggled with a substance abuse problem. I think that issue is in my past now — Posty McPostface

That's what I'm talking about. You don't just have "simple depression". You have a more complex diagnosis. "Depression" may feel the same for you that it would feel like for everybody else (feeling worthless, passivity, sleeping a lot, etc.) but the cause of your depression is likely more complicated. You have multiple diagnoses (if you were diagnosed CD) of MI and CD--which is fairly common. People often self-medicate with alcohol or recreational drugs to help themselves feel better.

Antidepressants may or may not help you -- they just don't work on everybody. So your psychiatrist may have to be extra good at designing treatment plans. You might benefit by being evaluated at a research university medical school clinic like USC or UCLA. They should be able to give you the best possible diagnosis and treatment plan (meds). (You have medicaid or medicare?)

You definitely would benefit from a supportive therapist and a good support group. The National Alliance on Mental Illness NAMI is a group you can use to find support groups. They have an office near you. Unfortunately, great therapists and great support groups can be hard to find.

As usual, a ridiculously sensible analysis from Monsignor Crank. This theory would explain why child rape has so afflicted one particular institution (a most unlikely one!) — Jake

Thanks, but I cribbed that from the article. The author also addresses your second point - he says the church, like schools, is a most likely place to find pedophiles. Again, he suggests there aren't a huge number of pedophiles; it just that there are some, and because the church wouldn't deal with it openly, they caused lot of damage to the church -- reputationally as well as financially.

Pedophilia isn't a mental illness; it's a "para-philia"--like getting turned on by women's red high heel shoes or underwear, or... whatever. It's certainly not good for the objects of pedophilia. Paraphilias don't seem very readily changeable. A large number of people, maybe a super majority, are to some degree paraphilic: certain things (blond hair, nice breasts, good legs...) turns a lot of men on; other things for women. Whatever it is, people find it difficult to separate themselves from these objects of arousal.

Convicted pedophiles are generally sentenced to rehabilitation programs where they are supposed to overcome their attraction to pre-pubescent children. There is generally a term. So, they complete the program; their term of commitment ends. Then what? The institutions can't guarantee that the person has been forever changed (or changed at all) so they aren't released. Not releasing people who have completed the program creates legal problems for the state. They weren't sentenced to life, but if they can't prove they are cured, how can they be released?

We have not arrived at a solution yet.

I suspect the solution will be to accept the pedophile's para-philia and teach the pedophile how to manage their desire without having sexual contact with children. They can't give up the desire, they will have to find alternatives.

We don't know how to cure schizophrenia, bi-polar, or OCD, The same goes for psychopathy or pedophilia.

Then, how do you cope with the depression then? My life is crummy but not unbearable. Does it have to get worse to get better? — Posty McPostface

I don't know whether or when or why it will get worse or better. I've been taking antidepressants for 30 years or so. Various formulations. Some of them have worked to some extent. I've spent time in talk therapy. That was good, but it didn't cure the depression.

What made my depression much better was a change in life circumstances over which I had only slight control. It probably is not possible for you to arrange a change of circumstances which would be so beneficial.

And if I understand past conversations, you have much more than simple depression on your plate. Given what all you are dealing with, you should have both a psychiatrist (for medication monitoring) and a therapist -- somebody who can offer you on-going support. A cure is probably not on the horizon, but better management is certainly a possibility. Some of the responsibility for better managing your condition is yours.

Not everything is curable. I have arthritis, and it isn't going to just go away or be cured. It probably won't shorten my life, but it is a pain (literally). My vision is slowly deteriorating. What can be done about that has being done. It will probably continue to slowly deteriorate. People with major neurological or mental illnesses (like bi-polar, schizophrenia, migraine, epilepsy) generally have these conditions for life.

Even with multiple things going haywire, one can opt -- meaning, one makes a concerted effort -- for as full a life as possible. Whiling away your time wallowing in a slough of indolence and melancholia is probably the LEAST healthy thing you can do for yourself.

So the least you can do is get out of bed, get dressed, and go for a walk. I realize that the world outside your front door is either burning down or getting gunned down these days, but you just have to grit your teeth and get on with it. Just avoid assassins and forest fires.

If you don't learn how to achieve getting out of bed, gettng dressed, and going for a walk, then you are probably going to stay stuck in your wallowing hole.

How long you require to take your next walk is a measurement of how well you can manage your condition. That much is up to you. As always, I wish you the best.

Here's a thoughtful article on Catholicism in the New York Review of Books. https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2018/11/22/catholic-church-sins-celibacy/

The opening...

On August 25 Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò published an eleven-page letter in which he accused Pope Francis of ignoring and covering up evidence of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church and called for his resignation. It was a declaration of civil war by the church’s conservative wing. Viganò is a former apostolic nuncio to the US, a prominent member of the Roman Curia—the central governing body of the Holy See—and one of the most skilled practitioners of brass-knuckle Vatican power politics. — NYRB

The author discusses celibacy and abuse which the author explains is not a result of celibacy. A very large percentage of priests are not celibate anyway, and their relationships are with male and female adults. What has happened is that the church's rigidity on celibacy has caused very large numbers of men to leave the priesthood. Many of the men who sign up for seminary find celibacy more of a shelter from their immature and highly conflicted sexuality than a sacrifice. It is from this group that pedophiles are likely to emerge. (The number of pedophiles in the priesthood are most likely not large, but the damage that hundreds of pedophiles can do is enormous.)

Alexander Stille, the author of the NYRB article, blames John Paul II for closing the door on married priests, and for contributing greatly to the push to cover up priestly abuse.

Worth a read.

re: Is nihilism supportable or is it an excuse for a lack of talent? I don't know whether 'lack of talent' has anything to do with nihilism, or not. Many normal young people seem to go through a period where they whine a lot and think everything is meaningless. Later on they stop whining and get on with life.

"Life is good" or "life is suffering" means that life has meaning. "Life IS meaning." That the universe, existence, or the details of one's generally good or bad life are "meaningless" is not a "natural" idea. Nihilism is a consequence of modern life (modern = last several hundred years). Where faith fails, nihilism becomes a reasonable conclusion.

It seems to me that the universe is meaningless, and along with it, the lives of us earthlings. BUT, we have the capacity to impose meaning and purpose, which we do. We employ religious or philosophical ideas to give life meaning. Or we stay busy and avoid thinking about it. That we are "imposing meaning" is also a modern idea. Saying "the universe is meaningless" ironically is not a meaningless statement. It is very meaning-full if we think life has no meaning.

Now don't get all deep on me. I was just being flippant.

But in terms of what is good and what is bad for living creatures (like our esteemed selves), "that which helps us flourish is good". Good food, fresh air, quality sleep, exercise, clean water, adequate shelter, and so forth. Infectious diseases (strep, staff, pneumococcal, plague, malaria, ebola, zika, etc.) are bad because they either stop us from existing altogether or they impede our flourishing. So are serious injuries.

We could list pages and pages of specific things that contribute to flourishing, or do not, but the general principle is sufficient.

So, good food is better than bad food -- we flourish more with good food. Good sex is better than bad sex. However as Seinfeld says, "Even when sex is bad its, you know, OK."

Good food is better than bad food.