Philosophy is the mother of all disciplines. — Toby Joseph

But mother became senile centuries ago and just keeps repeating herself. Physics is a well-rewarded son of philosophy, but hasn't needed mother dear for a long time. Ditto chemistry, medicine, the arts...

There is one rewarded child -- Economics -- who didn't suckle long enough. Too late now--poor old mother philosophy's tits are pretty much dried up. Economics needs to be adopted by a surrogate young lady with bulging breasts who can improve the functioning of that scrawny over-rated brat.

as a guy who still struggles with the implementation of Vatican II and prefers the Tridentine Mass — Rank Amateur

Oh, dear... Rank, bless you for holding down the paleo end of the Christian continuum. It's dirty work but somebody has to do it.

I attended a Tridentine Mass once. Far, far, far too long. I'm a Missa Brevis man. It seems to me that some bishop told Mozart to keep it short -- 45 minutes. Wise bishop.

The Lutheran lady reverend at the church across the street likes to drag things out, the weekly communion service ends up being about 80 minutes long. Very inefficient.

Catholics should probably ask Protestants what Catholicism is. We are totally objective about the Catholic Church so we would be a totally reliable source of information.

"Don't forget the kids!" — Jake

Oh, I wasn't forgetting the kids. Pedophiles tend not to also have adult relationships. It's maybe not a hard and fast rule, so to speak, but a tendency. Priest-work is a great way to gain access to children, just as school teaching, or olympic coaching or boy-scout work is a great way to have access to juveniles.

A married priesthood wouldn't change the behavior of pedophiles operating in the church and having sex with children. What a married and an openly gay priesthood would do is greatly increase the pool of candidates. Given an enlarged pool, the church could become more selective. Given a larger priesthood, the church would become more effective. Maybe the church should insist that their priest candidates be partnered--with somebody--male or female. So, what kind of title would the wife or husband of the Pope have?

The reality is that Catholics make up their own minds on what they want to believe. — Jake

That's a very Protestant view. Just saying...

bitter, like jake, you want to argue that the teaching is wrong, unjustified, etc. All I am saying, is that is the teaching. And all I am stating is what the church believes. I chose to believe it is true. But I feel no need to defend that belief. I am just saying what is, only from the POV of the church.

You, like jake, are free to believe as you wish. Again, I am not an evangelist. I am indifferent to what you chose to believe. — Rank Amateur

I shall, thank you -- and so will you. And that's fine by me. But when, exactly, was it decided that priests must not only all be male, but they must always be celibate? Even the BVM had sex after Jesus was born, you know, because Jesus had brothers. If the allegedly ever-virgin Mother of Christ can have sex, I don't know why priests can't. If it was good for Mary... He also had a disciple whom he loved. Jesus at least masturbated, you know that don't you? Not only that, he probably had sex. If God Incarnate can, then surely a mere priest ought to be able to get it on.

... the clergy is a bunch of old men who may have never even had sex... — Jake

Quite a few of these guys have had sex, and with (surprise, surprise) actual consenting adult men. Some have even managed to have sex with actual adult women.

I think a celibate priesthood, especially given the job description that priests have, is a psychosocial nightmare.

Here you have single men without partners of any kind who give their lives to the service of the church. They carry increasing workloads as the number of priests declines. They are immersed in people's problems with few if any sources of comfort for themselves, save prayer and fasting. Some comfort! They often live in parish residences by themselves or with other priests that are just as strung out as they are. A lot of them warped and twisted out of shape like green lumber.

Some of them are gay to start with. Given the way gay men operate it is relatively easy for priests to have a gay adult sex life, with actual relationships, out of the view of the church. (I was in a relationship with a priest for a couple of years.) I would think it would be more difficult for a woman and a priest to pull off the same thing. In either case (gay or straight) time is a restraint.

I suppose the church views priests having sexual relationships as a bad thing, but I think it is even worse for priests to go through life without having a sexual relationship.

Many people of the new generation are under the impression that we should ignore elections altogether. — Lif3r

There is some justification for ignoring elections not voting, The two political parties are not vastly different; politicians may promise X, Y, and Z. Some of them would like to deliver; some have no intention whatsoever of delivering. Those who promise and wish to deliver may be prevented from delivering. Neither party is interested in reducing defense spending; neither party is in favor of doing more to manage capitalism than to rearrange the deck chairs on the titanic. Neither party is prepared to lead people into the radical changes need to deflect catastrophic climate change. By necessity, people who run for office need wealthy friends to pay the high cost of campaigning. Elected politicians do not have vast resources to produce elaborate legislation so they rely on lobbyists who do have such capacity. So on and so forth.

So, for those reasons and more no significant change comes from government.

Still, people can not ignore government, whether it is effective or not. The government can demand your service in war. The government does demand a significant share of your income. The government provides many essential and useful services. A small part of the government is political and it comes and goes. A much larger part is "the permanent government" -- the civil servants who are on duty year in year out.

New occasions teach new duties; Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still, and onward, who would keep abreast of Truth;
Lo, before us gleam her camp-fires! we ourselves must Pilgrims be,
Launch our Mayflower, and steer boldly through the desperate winter sea,
Nor attempt the Future’s portal with the Past’s blood-rusted key. -- James Russell Lowell


Now you know damned well that the church doesn't list homosexuality as one more temptation among a million others. Homosexuality isn't right up there with eating too many Danish pastries during Lent. The church says homosexuality is "inherently disordered" (following the reasoning of Tom Aquinas). Paul didn't like homosexuality either, but then he didn't like a lot of things. It goes back to the Hebrews who wrote Leviticus. But Jesus overthrew the law. So, go ahead and have a pork chop and some lobster bisque. Just don't suck cock (or do other amusing activities along the same line).

The Pope wasn't infallible until July 18, 1870. Before that, he was fallible. Did the pope suddenly get much better at being pope? No. The First Vatican Council decided, for one murky reason or another, to declare one of their own incapable of error on matters ecclesiastical. The first ex cathedra decree took place in 1950, when Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary as an article of faith. Apparently the old girl was "assumed" (odd verb) into heaven. This allegedly happened about 2000 years earlier, and for some strange reason the church was't sure that getting assumed was an article of faith. Well, now it is, so you had just better believe it.

If, as the church has done, and believes these positions are based on divine revelation, then a dilemma exists. Either God was wrong, or their understanding of what God said is wrong. — Rank Amateur

Golly gee whiz, what could possibly go wrong with humans deciding not only what God said, but what God meant? Dilemma indeed!

...homosexual attraction is just a temptation. Giving into that temptation is sinful. — Rank Amateur

I would humbly submit that a greater temptation for the church to fall into is the temptation of thinking their doctrine is infallible. [The doctrine of the infallibility of ecumenical councils states that solemn definitions of ecumenical councils, approved by the Pope, which concern faith or morals, and to which the whole Church must adhere, are infallible. Such decrees are often labeled as canons, and they often have an attached anathema, a penalty of excommunication, against those who refuse to believe the teaching. The doctrine does not claim that every aspect of every ecumenical council is infallible.]

But then Protestants only recognize the first 4 ecumenical councils, not the dozen or so that followed.

With quite a bit of justification the whole church (Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant) has been called "The Great Apostolic Blunder Machine".***

And you know, I don't actually care that much any more what the holy and apostolic catholic (lower case c) church thinks about homosexuality or abortion or divorce or most things. Infallibility is just the temptation of Christian hubris!

No Catholic takes their marching orders from New England Protestant poets, of course, but Lowell is right about this: Time makes ancient good uncouth.

Orthodox Marxists understand what the working class is: It is people whose sustenance is dependent on getting paid for their labor. The working class is not equivalent to blue-collar workers who use wrenches and hammers, or forges or stamping machines. Secretaries wearing high heels (nothing else, of course), accountants wearing suits, skilled technicians running cameras in Hollywood or MRI machines at the hospital, nurses, check out people, philosophy professors, bell hops, etc. are all working class. Why is a philosophy professor working class? Because if he or she should be fired, he or she is likely to find themselves in dire economic straits later, if not within the same month.

@ssu: I know you understand this, but a lot of people do not. They think that if you work in an office, drive a decent car, and have a mortgage, then you are "middle class" and not "working class". The idea of "middle class" is defined by not using wrenches and hammers and living a slightly up-scale life style which probably floats on a pool of debt. For the uninitiated, "middle class" properly means "entrepreneurs who own their small businesses or professional offices. A successful law practice is "middle class". A successful surgical practice is "middle class". Owning a plumbing company employing a dozen plumbers and additional helpers is "middle class". Owning a batch of small office buildings and collecting rent on them is "middle class".

The old Dutch and English families who still own property underneath famous buildings in New York have been collecting rent for decades -- in some cases centuries. They are not dependent on their labor for their sustenance. Neither are the major heirs of the Rockefeller fortune. Bill gates, Warren Buffet, Fuckerberg, Bezos, Page, Brin, et al are not dependent on a daily, weekly, or monthly wage. Maybe Bezos was when he just started out, but when you are worth $150,000,000,000...

Why our hipster marxists can't understand the basic facts of class definition and class interest is beyond me. It is not that complicated. And their ignorance has led them to go in search of exotic and more interesting problems than those of people who are merely forced to work for a living. Gender confused people fill the bill! So do gay people. Migrants and Illegals -- darker skinned or not. (New York has a lot of Irish illegals.) Ahhhh, vive le différence! (Sounds better in French than in German -- vive la Unterschied.)

[quote-Fukuyama]The left continued to be defined by its passion for equality—by isothymia—but its agenda shifted from the earlier emphasis on the working class to the demands of an ever-widening circle of marginalized minorities.[/quote]

Tired of talking about narcissism? Here are 3 new Greek terms to wear out: Thymos, megalothymia, and Isothymia.

Megalothymia and isothymia are the two elements of thymos.

Thymos is a philosophical concept introduced by Plato as one of the three motivations of man, the first two being needs and desires. Thymos is the emotional need for every human to be recognized by others as human, and deserving of respect. Megalothymia specifically is the need to be recognized as superior to others, while isothymia is the need to be recognized as merely equal to others.

The nice thing about this pair of terms is that there is a built in ambiguity that will lead to lots of disputes as to whether transgendered people, for instance, are asking to be merely equal to others or not. Maybe they are claiming to be more special than everybody else. If I assert the isothymia of white people, is that believable? Everybody knows that white people think they are superior. If you are against open borders you must be a white supremacist. (The Guardian carried a piece the other day in which the author equated the Republican Party with white supremacy.) Thymos = isothymia = megalothymia.

You are absolutely right -- it's not very funny. The band "Yes" is an empty file. My cultural deficiencies strike again.

Who is the man?

I have no doubt that the GOP is suppressing votes, but we should remember that manipulating the vote (vote early and vote often) is something that Democratic and Republican political machines are both guilty of. Different methods have been applied at various times, and different groups have been targeted.

Be that as it may, vote suppression is not tolerable in a society that considers its political establishment legitimate.

The GOP seems bent on achieving long-term or permanent dominance. This is extremely worrisome. No political party can be trusted that far, that much. The consequence would ultimately be the disenfranchisement and marginalization of not only liberals of any stripe, but the poor, racial minorities who do not vote Republican, and various other groups (like gays).

It is true that I am fine with offending some people. It is also true that I do not use colored, negro, and other dated terms. I use either the adjective black or African American and have for a long time.

My usage is quite correct, but I do not think we must be bound by either a fear of offending people (so, some people are just plain fat) or an excessive concern with using the most up to date term. If I hear someone reference "colored", I don't feel obligated to correct them.

I don't find the case for transsexuals or transgendered people compelling either -- but I will consistently use the preferred name and pronoun if I interact with a trans person often enough to know what they prefer.

"Leadership" isn't inimical to the concept of anarchy; it's the " hierarch", the sacred ruler; the "arkhos" or king, ruler that is the problem. Eliminating the institutionalization of rule, government, that is the goal. An anarchic society would still require leadership, organizations, and institutions (but not ones that rule).

Catalonia anarchism was the longest and that was, what, three years? — MindForged

Yes, but it wasn't as if Catalonia was being left to pursue its own destiny without outside interference. Catalonia didn't shoot itself, it was murdered.

Ursula LeGuin wrote a short story (I read it in the collection "The Wind's Twelve Quarters") about Odo, a political philosopher who inspired people to build an anarchist society. The society is further explicated in her science fiction novel, The Dispossessed. There is, of course, a science fiction story along with the political philosophy. It's quite good.

There is nothing about anarchism that makes it impossible, any more than there is nothing about socialism or capitalism that prevents it from being a perfectly marvelous way of life. What gets in the way of politics, economy, and religion is the reliable nature of human beings. We just find it very difficult to suppress our individual urges, anxieties, hatreds, and selfishness so that we can get on with life in a maximally peaceful and productive way. We do OK for a while, but then individually and collectively people go haywire and everything falls apart.

Yes, I understand the term is dated. "Dating" is part of the normal 'churn' in language as people apply different adjectives to familiar nouns. I don't find the "association with a bleak past" very compelling not because there was no bleak past, but because there are myriad reminders of the bleak past, everywhere. When a people claim a new term for themselves (such as 'gay' instead of 'homosexual') they want to retire the old term. Malcolm X is an example: He original name was Malcolm Little.

If people can get away with it, names change. Philip Morris is now called Altria, but they are still in the same old tobacco business. Younger people probably wouldn't have heard of Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, but they have heard of 3M. Scotch tape is a 3M brand, even though people shamelessly misuse the term for non-3M sticky products. Best Buy used to be Sound of Music (they didn't sell refrigerators back then). Tokyo Tsushin Kogyo is more memorable as Sony. You'd probably rather have a Nintendo than a Marufuku, its original name.

Emotions are the instruments on which our lives are played. Without emotions our lives would just be a series of flat synthesized tones. With emotion our lives are an orchestra.

Emotions evolved before intellect in animals. Emotional responses (such as fear) protected animals. When an animal perceived danger, its emotions galvanized action without the necessity of complicated analysis. For instance, the sight of a large bird overhead signals to ground animals instant action. The fear response triggers instant action or maybe no action: a movement freeze can be quite protective.

Memory is closely allied with emotions and sensory input. Remembering danger speeds up the survival reaction even more.

Many animals developed intellect to enhance emotional responses. They got better at detecting small details indicating whether danger was imminent or not. So prey animals (like wildebeests) can tell the difference between a full-belly lion (no danger) and an empty-belly lion (watch out!).

All this developed before photo-primate creatures appeared.

The primate evolutionary line incorporated the beneficial aspects of emotions and over time sharpened up the cognitive function. In primates, as much as other animals, emotions are the primary springboard of behavior, triggering protective behaviors, mating behaviors, bonding behaviors, and so forth.

Humans retain the evolutionary equipment of other primates and the preceding evolutionary inheritance. There are complex linkages between emotion, memory, sensory centers, and the pre-frontal cortex where thinking goes on.

It should be noted that in this discussion presumably white people are debating what people who are not white should be called. Some non-whites think white people should take direction from them, not the other way around.

Negroes, niggers, colored, people of color, blacks, African American, and so on are terms which a demographic found being applied to them. Sometimes a particular term were preferred, sometimes not. We white folks might decide that from now on we are going to use the term "aboriginal" to apply to the original inhabitants of the western hemisphere -- whether the native Americans, American Indians, red skins, and Indians like it or not. Are people asians, orientals, yellow, asiatic, or something else?

What about that Sunday school song, Jesus Loves the Little Children? "...red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in his sight"? "Yellow" has negative associations, after all, when referencing people. Loving little children might reference pedophilia. BANNED!

'Colored' and 'Indian' may be dated, may not be the preferred term of the people about whom one is speaking, but neither term is in the category of scandal that using 'nigger', 'red skin', gook, or honky is.

The 1970 population of 200 million was a nice round population, as opposed to the bloated 300 million today. The question really isn't "How large a population should we have" but rather "How can we get rid of the surplus?"

Getting rid of the surplus is a topic which should not be pursued in public (lest the plans leak out and people start rioting). Instead, let's talk about the problem of "too many people":

Americans use a lot more energy than other people do. In a time of perilous global warming, it is essential we sharply and permanently reduce our carbon output. Even with all sorts of green energy, we still consume too much energy and produce too much waste. So, from now on, Negative Population Growth. That means the following:

Illegal immigrants and non-citizens will be expelled in the direction of whence they came. Since the average Honduran uses less energy than the average American (even a green American), the earth will be better off with all Hondurans living in Honduras. Getting rid of illegals reduces the population from about 320 million to at least 300 million in one fell swoop. (Of course we can send them back whence they came from. It will merely be a complicated logistical problem and people will be quite annoyed about it, but... tough.) Next, NPG: Negative population growth. Breeding pairs can be discouraged from doing what comes naturally,. (Well, they can do it, but take a pill, get those vas deferens snipped, tubes tied, what ever it takes...) We need to get the birth rate down to a population shrinking level.

Men and women should be encouraged (taxation, financial incentives, political reeducation camps in North Dakota, Mississippi, and West Virginia...) to have their single child while they are young and healthy.

Eventually the population will get back to around 200,000,000.

Homosexuality will be incentivized.

People will be encouraged to move to states with unpleasant weather which discourages exuberant sexuality. Florida without AC, Minnesota without heat, that sort of thing. There are also many cities which are so depressing people do not reproduce there. Gary, Indiana, Akron, Ohio, Bakersfield, CA, Las Vegas without gambling or water, etc. Living in depressing towns will be incentivized.

"Other methods" may have to be employed... Never mind what. You'll find out if you are not careful!

We don't know what happens when our body dies — leo

Oh, sure we do. It quickly becomes a site of ghastly decomposition. The worms crawl in, the worms crawl out -- literally.

Life after death is just like death before life. Do you remember what you were doing those billions of years before you were born? No. Because you didn't exist in that time. You don't exist; you exist; you don't exist. That's the whole opera in 3 acts.

I got better at staying in that poetic state of mind. — macrosoft

What in god's name is a "poetic" state of mind?

It is poetically denser than ordinary life. — macrosoft

I think Marshall McLuhan had something to say about that.

You didn't address the question of whether and why something he wrote was ensured (if it was censored).

What are your views on death, and why? — outlier

"I follow the Church Without Christ where the lame don't walk, the blind don't see, and the dead stay dead." (From Wise Blood by Flannery O'Connor)

Can this be the end of the God debate? — BrianW

So how's that coming along? I predict the end of the God debate is not just around the corner.

sharpest tool — Jake

He's such a tool.

rather than advance a more noble goal like human flourishing — praxis

I just don't think most presidents, congresses, governors, legislators, or mayors and city councils have been all that interested in the noble goal of human flourishing. OK, every now and then they might be seized by a fit of nobility, but after that wears off it's back to business as usual.

Most politicians are, by necessity, focused on their careers and the best interests of their political parties (venality, in other words). We expect accomplished politicians to resemble the Prince of Darkness; we just don't want them doing business out in the open where they upset women and children or frighten the horses.

a billion dollars he inherited from his father also gave him an unusual advantage — praxis

It seems to me that the democrats had plenty of money to conduct the 2016 campaign. The spending was $1.4 billion by Democrats (Clinton) to the Republican's $957.6 million (Trump).

Another $4 billion was spent on congressional races in 2016. The Republicans have had an intelligent long-range plan to capture state houses and governorships in order to better control redistricting, which is where a party can guarantee safe districts for decades into the future.

Now a call to chastity is an awful cross to carry. But we all have crosses some heavier than others — Rank Amateur

Just so that everyone is clear about this, chastity is a cross I have never considered bearing.

Have either of you heard of Dignity, (the gay Catholic organization)?

The organization was started in 1969 to advocate for gay Catholics within the church. One of their principle activities was the organization of masses for gay Catholics, held at places like Newman Centers (Catholic student centers at state college campuses). There was no shortage of gay priests to celebrate. They earnestly and patiently advocated for decades. In 1986 the church started expelling Dignity from Catholic facilities in the United States (and elsewhere). The ban on gay catholic organizations using church facilities has not been rescinded as of 2018. So much for progress.

The Anglican and Lutheran churches have been far more forthright in accepting gay people. Lutheran ministers can, for instance, perform gay marriages using the standard liturgy (with a slight language change).

Not all protestants have done so well. The United Methodist Church (my church tradition) is deeply split over the issue. I'm not quite sure where Baptists stand (haven't checked).

So what happened to Gay Catholics? Well, they either left the church or they found friendly parishes and became active members without denying their sexual orientation. Most parishes are happy to have active members, whoever/whatever they are. This kind of integration into parishes does not fundamentally change the church, however. Gay people have always been part of the church -- priests, nuns, monks, and members. (How do you think so many priests died of AIDS?)

Yes. Good analysis.

As Lenin said, "Who votes is totally unimportant. What matters is who counts the votes."

Morality seems seriously undermined if people can just override a moral claim by an action. — Andrew4Handel

Indeed, and this happens fairly often. When people override moral claims we call it "antisocial", "wicked", "illegal", "criminal" or some such term.

For example it seems pointless to call The Holocaust wrong after it has already happened and millions of people have died and are apparently beyond the scope of justice. It seems a belated moral judgement. — Andrew4Handel

If one is not going to raise objections or interfere before or during a horrific crime, then it is at least not very useful to declare the criminal act immoral. As it happens, crimes like the Holocaust had occurred before 1938. There was the Turkish genocide of 1.5 million Armenians in 1915-1917. The Turks have not accepted guilt for what they did. There was the slower American displacement of American Indians over hundreds of years which amounted to genocide. We haven't accepted guilt for that, either. Then there was slavery, which amounts to another variety of genocide. Later there was the Cambodian and Rwandan genocide. Once the crime is over and the victors have taken charge...

I don't think we know if any action is moral — Andrew4Handel

I suppose if someone was raised by wolves they would grow up not knowing anything about morality. People, however, grow up being taught some kind of morality by other humans. How do we know what is moral?

The process of being nurtured through infancy, growing through childhood, becoming a responsible adult, requires that we learn how to cooperate with others, request and give assistance when needed, share, and so on. When we violate the accepted norms of nurture, cooperation, helping others, sharing, playing together, and so on we get aversive feedback (punishment). At a minimum, morality is created through these experiences. Most people are also explicitly taught lessons on what is right and wrong.

Human beings all require this kind of basic morality to be in place in order to function collectively.

That is how we know what is right or wrong. We create principles which we expect ourselves to follow.

I think some people act and they feel satisfied with their action and that makes them believe the action or their prior intuition was correct. — Andrew4Handel

Yes, that's called self-justification. People who engage in wrong-doing, especially when they engage in it as part of a larger collective action, quite often feel very self-justified.

The fact is, people who know perfectly well what is morally right and morally wrong are perfectly capable of doing forbidden acts and feeling OK about themselves. This phenomenon is pretty common. Most of us do this occasionally, but we don't make a habit of it. But sometimes it is essential. I was taught that homosexuality was very wrong. None the less, I liked gay sex, and did it as often as possible. Once I moved out into the larger world and discovered a community of gay men, I was able to redefine gay sex as an inherently good thing and stopped feeling guilty about it.

I, like most Americans my age, was taught that communism and socialism were very, very wrong. Again, once I discovered a community of people who were socialists, I was able to change my thinking.

Morality changes, but moral guidance continues.

It means that you can only be you. I can only be me. You and I (and all humankind) are not made to live forever; we are made to live for a little while, and then die. It is not a cruelty, it is a grace that we have only a little time to become who we will be. "Three score years, and ten..." four score, maybe five. A century. It isn't a long time, but it is long enough.

Living forever, in this body with this mind, would be hell as @Wayfarer said.

There are too many things in the world to be immensely upset about; one can't (and shouldn't) maintain a state of high dudgeon all the time. Some rage is good; all rage all the time is crazy. One has to give it a rest so that one can perhaps actually do something about the wrongs of the world.

I thought that the video Posty posted was kind of stupid, but I'm not upset about it. It just didn't do much for me in the way of tranquility. You all would probably find my idea of relaxing youtube drivel stupid too. That's OK.

I've heard you play. 300 years? You are being extremely optimistic.

Just joking of course. But I believe it is a mistake to think that we would achieve greatness in any field if only we had enough time. We are who, and what, we are. Multiplying a normal life time by any exponent you want won't change your essential nature.

I like to read; that doesn't mean that I would enjoy reading all the books in the Library of Congress -- 16,000,000 plus the British Library's 25,000,000. If I read one book a day, it would take me 112,000 years.

Living forever, preferably in a young healthy body, is a fantasy of heaven transferred to earthly (or extraterrestrial) existence.

I might live to be 100. That would give me another 28 years. I am quite certain that in the next 28 years, even with excellent health, a clear mind, and physical vigor, that I would have the same kinds of experiences and ideas that that I had during the last 72 years. That's because I am still me. I might have a few fresh new ideas, I might find some new experiences that were quite interesting, and so on. But probably not. There will always be diminishing returns. If I were going to write a great novel, I would at least have written a moderately interesting short story by now. If I were going to inaugurate a new era in art, I would at least be able to draw a convincing apple.

I have my grave plot and marker all ready to go -- nothing to add but the date of death. (And mail in the fee to the Cremation Society -- which is something I really ought to get done.)

It's not the status I covet so much as being paid — macrosoft

Did somebody suggest that you were going to get paid forever?

We don't like it when people dump something on our door step and then leave. Get back here and defend your pile of crap!

why do people hate Trump in the U.S.? — DiegoT

Not everyone does hate Trump.

Those who are not fond of, dislike, loathe, or hate Donald Trump are responding to several features:

First, he has zero record in public service. He is an entrepreneur.
Second, as an entrepreneur (real estate) he has not been nearly as successful as he paints himself to be. Some of his projects appear to be manipulative bankruptcies. Many of his hotels are not actually his -- the Trump name is licensed.
Third, Much of Trump's wealth was inherited. This is not at all unusual -- a lot of rich people inherited their wealth. But Trump has presented his wealth as the work of his own genius.
Four, Trump's familiarity to the public is based on his abrasive celebrity shows.

Much of his career carries with it more than a little odor of dishonesty and flim flam.

Trump has made little effort to perform the role that politicians traditionally at least attempt: the statesman with gravitas. Trump eschewed any sign off gravitas (substance and dignity) from the getgo. While not being uneducated himself (presumably he learned something in college) he favors the impression of being anti-intellectual. Americans do not expect their presidents to be learned scholars, but they want them to respect learned scholars (because the president needs to get good information on which to make decisions). Trump seems to be in very short supply of good information about anything.

Trump is cynical; this is standard in politics, but he makes little effort to conceal cynicism the way most politicians do. His election strategy was to play to the lowest common denominator in crucial states. We don't like open cynicism.

Trump has little respect for the kind of role that most Americans expect the President to fulfill.

Trump didn't invent the right wing, white supremacists, racism, anxiety about poorly controlled immigration from Mexico and Central America, and so on but he has done nothing to allay mainstream fears about the right wing, photo-facists, crypto-fascists, authoritarians, and so on.

Barack Obama, George Bush II, William Clinton, George Bush I, Ronald Reagan, Jimmy Carter, Richard Nixon, Lyndon Johnson, J. F. Kennedy, Dwight Eisenhower, Harry Truman, F. D. Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, Warren Harding, and Woodrow Wilson -- have all been problematic in various ways. Presidents, of course, are not perfect and it is a very difficult job. But most Presidents have more or less played the role that was expected of them. Most of them have been reasonably competent. Perhaps Trump is most like Warren Harding. Harding died in office, so maybe Trump will be kind enough to do the same. His Vice President can follow suite.

Trump has more forthrightly revealed what ruling class politics is really about -- protecting the ruling class and fucking over everyone else. He has pulled the curtain aside (think of the Wizard in Oz 'reveal' scene).

In summary, Donald Trump is an arrogant asshole.

I might, but what product actually delivers what it claims to deliver? (I guess yoghurt is fairly reliable, but that's only 4 or 5 species of bacteria out of... thousands.) Probiotics aren't regulated, so whether they contain what they claim, as much as they claim, or anything more than dust from the warehouse is anybody's guess.

There wasn't much of anything left in the large intestine, though I suppose the walls were coated with samples of bacteria that were there before. The appendix is also supposed to keep a sampling of microbes on tap. But this didn't, after all, involve antibiotics. The furthest extent of the colonoscopy tube is where the small intestine joins the large intestine; one could see some of the cilia-structures; it looks quite a bit different than the colon. One could also see the opening into (or out of) the appendix, if ever the appendix decided to open up.

Since the microbiome is so important in our function, I'd like to get the mix that produces intellectual brilliance, creative genius, sunny equanimity, physical prowess, and a robust immune system. The varieties that I had before produced nothing but bullshit.

Twilight sleep — ArguingWAristotleTiff

What I got was some benzodiazapine and fentanyl -- the stuff that everybody is overdosing on and dropping dead from. It worked great--I was awake to watch the show. Now, afterwards the nurse told me she had to tell me to keep breathing several times but I have no memory of that. There were a couple of moments that were painful, but not terrible and very short -- when they turned the head of the scope backwards to view the asshole from the inside out.

The results were zero polyps, zero cancers, all good.

I was starving: a can of soup, a piece of cold chicken, some toast, cheese, a sweet potato with fresh apple sauce and cranberries (now in season).

is there nothing to say to a person who defines the Church as a group of paedophiles? — CarlosDiaz

Probably there isn't much that can be said that will make much difference. One could say something like"The Church hierarchy clearly has tolerated child abuse when it should have rooted out the individuals who were in violation of everything the church considers holy. It did not, much to its undoing." or something along those lines.

Then move on, unless you really want to get into the child abuse scandal, which you probably do not want to do.

It's like when I reference socialism, and somebody says it's a totally unworkable fraud, I know there is no common ground with this person. One just has to move on.

Don't you think that before pinpointing mistakes in my writing... — CarlosDiaz

I wasn't criticizing your writing really, just the way you (and other people) terminate engagement. I mentioned that it wasn't all about you, it was about that sort of termination popping up fairly often.

Some people do not share enough of your commitment to or interest in the church to have a conversation in much depth. The same goes for me and people who loathe socialism: we might as well avoid getting into a squabble, because their views and mine are just not going to be similar.

Jake and Rank Amateur were discussing your topic several hours ago and it didn't go very well. They don't share enough agreement.

Sometimes. you know, it is impossible to get simple arguments through the thick skulls of otherwise intelligent, caring, sensitive, handsome, charming, Christ-like individuals. For the sake of the forum, just move on. You'll eventually be writing about something they and you can agree on enthusiastically, then it will be nice to be on good terms with them.

(Yeah, I know; sounds great in theory, and truth be told, there are times when I have been painfully rude and undiplomatic in face-to-face settings, and it's surprising that those people ever spoke to me again. (Well, some of them haven't, actually. I've been banned from one of my sisters homes by her husband who found my views on certain elderly -- now dead -- southern senators (real racists) to be intolerable. I think the last time I visited their house was 20 years ago.)