Are you opposed to subsidized healthcare? — creativesoul

Define healthcare.

Are you opposed to government subsidized healthcare for those less fortunate? — creativesoul

Depends what "healthcare" means. Abortion isn't healthcare, unless the woman's life is threatened.

So you don't think that abortion should be illegal — praxis

At minimum no one should be forced to pay for it or perform it.

or that it's not killing a being with a soul or whatever? — praxis

It is killing a being with a soul.

As I read through the above, I know that much of what is said about 'the atheist' quite simply isn't true. — creativesoul

As I said, I used those classifications symbolically.

the pursuit of one's own happiness — creativesoul

No, I don't value this.

if you value freedom, liberty, self-direction — creativesoul

Yes, I think these are quite important.

then you must consider who has the right and/or authority to tell a woman what to do with her own body... — creativesoul

On my property and using my tools and my money? I do.

I say the woman, and in my saying that I honor both views, whereas if one opposes abortion, s/he is not honoring both views. Rather, s/he is forcing their own religious beliefs onto another. — creativesoul

I oppose abortion, and any woman interested to have it is free to have it with whoever agrees to it, but the government has no right to take my money and use it to fund abortions. Nor, if I am a doctor, does the government have any right to force me to give abortions to women if I don't want to. Both those would infringe my liberty and would be unacceptable.

Good luck with that. — Wayfarer

Hmm well you say good luck with that, but until now you were saying that I made no suggestions, while in truth I had made them. So why is it suddenly that you don't want to talk about them anymore?

The point is that democracy enables principled opposition. — Wayfarer

It doesn't pertain to the essence of democracy to enable principled opposition. Constitutional monarchy can also enable principled opposition.

When you say that democracy ought to be abolished, and that it is impossible to be 'spiritual and democratic', then what you're recommending is some form of authoritarianism, where divergence of views is not tolerated. — Wayfarer

This is not at all true. If democracy isn't appropriate, it doesn't follow that authoritarianism (or tyranny) is the answer. This makes it very difficult to argue with you because you're effectively giving me false alternatives - either democracy, or Nazis (or some dictatorial/authoritarian equivalent of them). That's not at all the case.

The fact that Trump is notoriously clueless, doesn't read anything, doesn't remember anything. They have to his official papers with his name so he bothers reading them. — Wayfarer

You do realise this is ALL speculation. So you're going to invent whether Trump has a clue or not about the statues, and then you're going to attack his comments based on that. Sorry, that's actually post-truth.

I presented a list of more than a thousand falsehoods, spoken by Trump, published and on the record, and you couldn't even be bothered to respond to it. — Wayfarer

?? I did respond to it.

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/100318

You just waved it away. — Wayfarer

No I didn't. I've read through the list and I've analysed a few of the so-called lies myself. Not all that are listed there are actually lies. I hope you realise that. Just because a journalist calls them lies, and says so and so about them, doesn't mean they're actually lies. You have to listen to or read the original sources and make up your own mind about them. Yes, some of them are no doubt lies, but others, probably more than 50% aren't.

I don't read the newspapers with regards to the US. My opinion about Trump is based mostly on primary sources alone. I listen to what he says, and I've listened to what he said for a long time. Including to his political opponents, like Hillary Clinton. I don't visit Trump loving websites on the internet, or anywhere else. My opinion isn't influenced by New York Times, or whatever other newspaper, because I never read the political sections of those news sources. My opinion about Trump isn't through the prism of some media or another - I just don't engage with them. I read mostly primary sources to get my news, I don't need it filtered through the heads of some journalists.

It's also quite possibly a copy of this one @Michael

Everyone is a slave in the sense that they have to somehow earn or otherwise acquire a living or die, BC. Life itself makes 'slaves' of us all in that kind of sense. — Janus

Having to earn your living in and of itself doesn't make you a slave, but having a wage under an employer generally does. I've always hated working under someone else, which is why I didn't last long >:O .

The reason for this is that slavery involves control over someone's time first and foremost. Time is the most valuable resource. It's not that an employer doesn't pay me enough, it's that he gets to control what I do with my time, he gets to dictate when I'm in, when I'm out, how I'm dressed, and on and on. Not to mention that he also wields complete control over the results of my work. My labor is essentially stolen. It's much better to accept even a lower pay and be self-employed than to work under another and get a slightly higher pay.

The main problem for the younger generations is that universities typically only train people how to be good (and proud!) slaves. You cannot find training regarding how not to be a slave. That kind of training doesn't exist. It's too subversive. You have to learn it yourself. Which is why I feel that the younger generations are getting poorer and poorer. Most parents haven't understood this either, at least in this part of the world, so too much emphasis is given to school, but people don't actually learn how to be financially independent in school. People have to be taught - outside of school - about it, including how to manage wealth and private property. Many families end up poor when wealth transfers from the parents to the children because the children - out of no fault of their own - don't have a clue how to guard the private property they were given.

One advantage in this day and age though is the internet, since it's much easier to learn to do some useful work by yourself online (like programming) than it is to - say - learn to become a carpenter by yourself. I mean it's not impossible to learn to be a carpenter by yourself, but you'd need a supportive family while you learn, as well as the tools and practice space necessary. I imagine when the internet didn't exist, you were pretty much stuck slaving away for someone for at least the first - say - 5-6 years of your adult life.

So, he played with McGregor for a few rounds then when he felt like it, beat the crap out of him. — Baden

Well, yeah, that's kind of an accurate description of it! >:O >:O >:O

Democracy is not 'a system'. Democracy is the opportunity to suggest 'a system'. You still don't get that. — Wayfarer

Democracy is not the opportunity to suggest the system, it's the opportunity to suggest someone to be in charge of particular functions within an already pre-established system. This difference is very important to understand.

Without saying what they are. — Wayfarer

I did say very clearly constitutional monarchy as an example. How am I not saying what they are? What would you want me to tell you that is missing?

Which is yours, right? — Wayfarer

I do think Christianity - of which I'm a member - is the spiritual path that reaches the farthest from those that I know, yes. It would be absolutely silly if I didn't think so - otherwise what would I be doing being a Christian? But this isn't to say that other spiritual paths aren't also valuable.

Likewise if you don't think Buddhism is the right path, or that it goes further than other paths, why are you even a Buddhist? :s

Because he hasn't got an f*ing clue what they mean, but that it would appeal to the racists and nazis that support him. — Wayfarer

How do you know that he hasn't got a clue what they mean? On what do you base this assertion?

Furthermore, how many racists and neo-nazis are there? Let's say 50,000 in the whole of the US. Would anyone bother to appeal to 50,000 people for political support if they are a (smart) opportunist looking to win elections while risking alienating millions?! 63 million people voted for Donald Trump. That's his base, and most of them aren't neo-nazis, KKK, etc. So either Trump is stupid and trying to appeal to groups that have no influence whatsoever, OR he has a personal sentiment that taking down the statues is destroying the heritage of the US. I'm inclined to believe the latter. And I have no reason to believe that he has no clue what the statues mean.

Oppression is not being obliged to avoid coercing others. — Banno

Sure.

If we agree, as you say, that morality must be freely chosen, then we need social injunctions such that all are free to so choose. — Banno

I think it's a fact that all are free to choose, rather you might mean that their freedom to choose should be protected.

My freedom is limited in that I ought, as far as possible, not subject you to coercion. — Banno

Ah, it would be great if in practice freedom was so limited! But this is often not taken into account, often quite the contrary, coercing me is taken to be your freedom. You must be aware that what is deemed to be one's freedom is very often exactly that which harms another. For example, pro-choice people view it as the woman's freedom to do what she wants with her body, but this is precisely that which harms the baby.

Right - so you might be reactionary, rather than fascist. — Wayfarer

Why so? If you think I'm a reactionary, then democrats are also reactionaries - they've taken us back to Ancient Greece! But of course, I'd make no such claim, because today's democracy is different than Greek democracy, just as today's constitutional monarchy would be different than yesterday's constitutional monarchy.

But, what are real alternatives to democracies? Theocracies, or monarchies? Any examples of those? — Wayfarer

I know what you'll do here. You'll ask me for examples from today's world, I won't be able to give any, and then you'll claim that therefore democracy is the only real possibility. The problem with this argument is that of course since democracy is the dominating system it will make it seem like it is the only real alternative. That's what always is the case with political systems - when one system dominates, it seems like the only real alternative (that's part of the condition it needs to meet in order to dominate and not be replaced). Furthermore, a proposed better system will always be different than the "real" options currently existing by default.

You're thinking - what - Tehran? Saudi Arabia? — Wayfarer

No, none of the two. I said constitutional monarchy - Tehran is a theocracy, and Saudi is an absolute monarchy. There's differences between those three systems of government. Labelling non-democratic people as fascist is of course an attempt to deny other alternatives and affirm democracy as the only "real" possibility, but that's precisely what we should be investigating.

In your view, there can only be one true way. — Wayfarer

In what way though? I think there's generally multiple ways to find out the answer to a technical problem - such as how tall is a building - but I don't think you're intending to refer to this.

That is mirrored in all your comments about authority, democracy and spirituality - there can only be one way. — Wayfarer

Ah, so it's just about authority, democracy and spirituality. Well with regards to democracy, I feel that it is you who thinks that democracy is the only "real" way, whereas I'm willing to take into consideration other ways. There isn't only "one way" in politics, but there can be a way which is better than the others - some of the time, not in all matters though.

With regards to spirituality, there are multiple ways and paths (represented by the multiple religions). So each way or path is useful as far as it goes. But there is one way which reaches farther than the others.

Because you don't understand or respect the issue of 'principled dissent' — Wayfarer

I think people are allowed to dissent (speak out against something) provided they do this in a reasonable manner and without the use of violence. They should be respected for that.

'Liberalism' is an over-arching political philosophy which allows for principled dissent. You give no indication that you understand what this means. — Wayfarer

I wouldn't say principled dissent is the core principle of liberalism. Liberalism is the over-arching political philosophy of today that wants to claim that it is the only legitimate way, which is a problem. That's why the most "liberalist" nation, the US, has so frequently invaded other parts of the world - in order to bring liberation, since only liberation is legitimate. Of course, this has been just a coverup for imposing their own way of life on other people, and depriving them of any actual freedom.

Nonsense. There is nothing else remotely close. But it doesn't matter to you, because you're not actually interested in facts; you like Trump, because you like how he makes you feel. — Wayfarer

Well I am interested in the facts, my problem with many of those lies is that they're not factual and they're misinterpreted and twisted around. You keep talking as if Trump was my ideal President, and of course he's not, in fact I made it clear from long ago that I support Trump only as a way to destroy the system.

He projects what you interpret as authority and control — Wayfarer

I don't think it's this. Rather many of his actions are good. Attacking the media, attacking the Republican Party, bringing back the notion of protecting heritage and not taking down the statues, encouraging respect of law and order, including the sovereignty of a country, and so on so forth. This is true even if his intentions are wrong.

And you're not? You think I'm not capable of detecting the bias and agenda of the Washington Post, and somehow, you are? — Wayfarer

I never said you're incapable and I'm capable. The sentence you quoted was simply justification for why the media is biased. It's not because there is a massive conspiracy (as you suggested in our previous exchange that I would believe). But rather because:

[the media] driven by an ideological agenda that they have internalised, and they see the world through its lens. — Agustino

But, he's not 'hammering away' because he has anything better to offer. — Wayfarer

Yes, in many cases this is true.

He has no principles and no grasp of politics. — Wayfarer

I think he actually does have some principles, maybe not consciously, but he has some ingrained in him. Why did he jump up to protest against the taking down of the statues? It wasn't politically expedient for him to do so, was it? Quite the contrary, the wind is blowing in the opposite direction. But he stood up to speak against it. This suggests to me that there are some other drives inside of him. The ego is important, but the ego can be taken over by such principles, because, for example, he'll want to think about himself as the big someone who stops these thugs from destroying American heritage.

A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ (from Greek δημαγωγός, a popular leader, a leader of a mob, from δῆμος, people, populace, the commons + ἀγωγός leading, leader) or rabble-rouser is a leader in a democracy who gains popularity by exploiting prejudice and ignorance among the common people, whipping up the passions of the crowd and shutting down reasoned deliberation. Demagogues overturn established customs of political conduct, or promise or threaten to do so.

Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, it is possible for the people to give that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.

Sure, but I have been saying this for a very long time. And I've been very badly criticised because of it. How dare I say that we as a society really value "pussy-grabbing" and the like? How dare I say Trump really represents the majority as they are, not as they'd like to pretend to be?

Only someone that doesn't understand that philosophy is lived, and not simply lipped would say "pfft, maybe in philosophy, but what about your real life?". — Wosret

Well I think at least that I understand that philosophy is lived, but the practice of living doesn't deal in truth, it deals in actions. Those actions are only guided (but not wholly determined) by truth.

My words and actions are not directed towards the manipulation of the the world to the ends of my desires, but the truth. Does this result in success? It doesn't fucking matter to me if it did or didn't. — Wosret

In terms of philosophy sure, but what about, say, in terms of building a family? Are your words and actions in that case not directed towards the well-being of the family instead of to truth?

They even have tested it, and shown that people that think they'll do the best on a test do like the worst, and people that think they'll do the worst do the best. The wisdom traditions are all about checking your ego, which is a defense against your vulnerabilities and mediocrities. — Wosret

With regards to taking tests, exams and the like, I can say this is true based on my experience. I thought I will fail many tests and exams, and I passed them with honors. And there were a few rare exceptions when I felt overconfident, and in one of those cases I even failed.

Confidence has nothing to do with your ability to do anything other than get people to believe you. The obsession with confidence, and who's more afraid or lip quivery is so fucking silly. — Wosret

But I'm not sure about this. Personally, I'm someone who appears outwardly confident (nobody who knows me in real life would say I'm not confident) but I'm very inwardly pessimistic and totally lacking in confidence on the inside. But I fear that if I didn't appear outwardly confident, then my failure rate would be much greater. Appearances do matter - not to me, but to others they do. And I need to influence others, otherwise almost nothing can be done in the world.

Being outwardly confident but inwardly full of doubt gives you the best of both worlds I think. You're not going to underestimate the obstacles, but you'll still get people to believe you.

But there is a sense in which confidence is very important. And it's important in getting you to act - someone who is very confident on the inside, is very quick to act. That can be an advantage. For me, I'm extremely slow to act. Once I act on an idea or thought I'm unrelenting and determined, but starting something new, etc. I'm slow to make my moves. I like to brood over matters over a long time. Despite this, so far I have found that my success rate on what I aim is quite very high, but I presume it is so simply because I take extreme caution compared with many other people I know.

McGregor seems to have a big mouth, but to me it seems that Floyd appeared to be more confident.

All of you blinded democracy lovers should listen to what people like this guy have to say:



It is really beyond reason that a spiritual person can consider democracy - the rule of the stupid masses - where rulers are temporary, and not in fact rulers at all, but rather thieves and abusers - as an acceptable system of government. Democracy is a disease, which very likely is close to the root of the loss of spiritual values. Democracy - whatsoever is immoral is the product of democracy. Debauchery is a very democratic affair afterall - it is indeed somewhat difficult to imagine a non-democratic man in a night club.

Oligarchy then degenerates into democracy where freedom is the supreme good but freedom is also slavery. In democracy, the lower class grows bigger and bigger. The poor become the winners. People are free to do what they want and live how they want. People can even break the law if they so choose. This appears to be very similar to anarchy.

Plato uses the "democratic man" to represent democracy. The democratic man is the son of the oligarchic man. Unlike his father, the democratic man is consumed with unnecessary desires. Plato describes necessary desires as desires that we have out of instinct or desires that we have in order to survive. Unnecessary desires are desires we can teach ourselves to resist such as the desire for riches. The democratic man takes great interest in all the things he can buy with his money. He does whatever he wants whenever he wants to do it. His life has no order or priority.

This summary of Plato's position from Wikipedia sounds EXACTLY like a description of our current society today.

Now, the audience was the biggest ever.

One of my friends also told me "you should come with me to XXX place, they have the best steak ever there!" -> is he a liar now, because there's some place in the world where there's better steak?! Of course not, I understand what he means by that. Same with Trump.

JAN. 21 “I wasn't a fan of Iraq. I didn't want to go into Iraq.” (He was for an invasion before he was against it.)

Yes he made a tiny statement in answer to a question: "Are you for invading Iraq?" which he answered "Yeah, I guess so". That's not a lie. Give me a break. He never totally endorsed the war. As far as I'm concerned, he was still one of the first people to start opposing it. Anyone can make such a statement at first. He answered a casual question casually.

I really am perturbed that people can say that he lied about this. Absolutely perturbed. How is that even a lie?!

JAN. 21 “A reporter for Time magazine — and I have been on their cover 14 or 15 times. I think we have the all-time record in the history of Time magazine.” (Trump was on the cover 11 times and Nixon appeared 55 times.)

Yes, he said a falsehood, but it's not a lie. He thought it's an all-time record, and he was wrong. No big deal.

JAN. 23 “Between 3 million and 5 million illegal votes caused me to lose the popular vote.” (There's no evidence of illegal voting.)

Reportedly he said this in November and he was pushing for an investigation on it. I agree that this is a lie.

JAN. 25 “Now, the audience was the biggest ever. But this crowd was massive. Look how far back it goes. This crowd was massive.” (Official aerial photos show Obama's 2009 inauguration was much more heavily attended.)

Hyperbole and figure of speech. Truth is, it was a massive crowd. Not "biggest ever", but quite big.

JAN. 25 “Take a look at the Pew reports (which show voter fraud.)” (The report never mentioned voter fraud.)

Trump never said this, it was some of his associates which did.

Neither study Mr. Spicer apparently referred to supports Mr. Trump’s claim.

The first study was conducted in 2014 by professors at Old Dominion University and discussed on Monkey Cage, a blog hosted by The Washington Post. Using data from the Cooperative Congressional Election Study, the researchers found that 14 percent of noncitizens who responded to the survey in 2008 and 2010 said they were registered to vote.

The problem is that the study relied on flawed data and was roundly criticized by political scientists who said that a more careful examination of the data revealed no evidence that noncitizens had voted in recent elections.

The second study, conducted in 2012 by the Pew Center on the States, found that 24 million voter registrations were no longer valid or “significantly inaccurate”; that more than 1.8 million dead people were still listed on the voter rolls; and that almost three million were registered in multiple states, probably because they had moved from one state to another.

They didn't show actual voter fraud, but they showed it's very possible to commit voter fraud. So again, not a complete lie. There's quite a bit of truth in there.

JAN. 25 “You had millions of people that now aren't insured anymore.” (The real number is less than 1 million, according to the Urban Institute.)

We also found that 3.9 million people are now
covered through the state and federal marketplace—the socalled
insurance exchanges—and less than 1 million people
who previously had individual-market insurance became uninsured
during the period in question

Using this estimate, our findings imply that roughly 2.6 million people would have reported that their plan would no longer be offered due to noncompliance with the ACA. Another 6 percent reported that their plan was cancelled for other reasons, and 75.4 percent reported that they did not receive a notice of cancellation (figure 1).

Doesn't sound like a lie to me.

When you investigate most of this shit-storm, most of it is empty air and nothing more (although there are some real lies, even in this small sample I bothered to check). Reporters are told "write a story on this, hurry quick quick!". They research for 5 minutes around, read a few words here and there, and then pull out a story. I've spoken with people who work in Newspapers - I know how this stuff happens, and how little care is given to it. And how do they pull out a story? By having a feel for what they should write.

This is where I think you tend towards fascism. You have a real hang-up about authority and control. — Wayfarer

I don't think it's a hang up at all. It's absolutely important. Democracy has in fact killed some of the most enlightened people who have ever lived. It's just a fact. That is also why Plato for example spoke so badly about democracy. In fact, most of the world's greatest thinkers in history have been opposed to democracy. Authority and control are absolutely essential, and there's nothing about fascism here. Fascism is the imposition of morality by physical force, I'm not talking about that kind of illegitimate authority. I'm rather talking about the kind of authority that would exist in a constitutional monarchy.

Banno raises the 'tradition of liberalism', and you answer 'what about abortion?' Who is talking about 'having abortions'? What has that got to do with the discussion? — Wayfarer

The abortion issue is absolutely important. Because the "tradition of liberalism" gives the wrong answer to it - and we see it in practice. People who are pro abortion argue based on the arguments of liberalism. That is a problem. Nobody can endorse liberalism while not taking this into account.

The idea of 'principled opposition' is basic to democracy, yet you don't seem to understand it. — Wayfarer

Yes, it is basic to democracy, but I have already said I don't have much of a high opinion about democracy. So you should start out by telling me why I should reconsider democracy first of all. To tell me that "principled opposition" is basic to democracy is irrelevant granted that I don't consider democracy a valid system of government.

I agree with you that the decline of spiritual principles is the cause of moral and social decay. But you simply can't assert that your way - whatever that way is - is the only way. That's what you're saying here. — Wayfarer

Why do you think I'm saying "my way" is the only way? And what do you mean by "my way"?

Trump demonstrably tells untruths, all the time - sometimes outright lies, other times distortions or half-truths, and other times falsehoods out of ignorance. This is documented. The media is not 'nit-picking' - the list of those lies is here, and these have been exhaustively fact-checked by large teams of people. — Wayfarer

I will look through that list. But to be honest, just by skimming through, it looks quite small for a politician.

he fact that Trump lies more than Barack Obama, Hilary Clinton, Richard Nixon, or any other US President or Presidential candidate. This is a rolled-gold, 100% solid, verifiable and indisputable fact, and to doubt it is to either be deceived or to be party to it. It's all there black and white, read the list. — Wayfarer

I disagree about this as of now.

I know that CNN, NY Times and Washington Post have their own biases and blinkers on, but they have teams of journalists working on this material, and if you believe they're all engaged in a conspiracy, then really I do think that your mind has been stolen by Internet memes. — Wayfarer

I never claimed they're engaged in a conspiracy. Oh no, that would be far too absurd. They're doing it unconsciously - they're driven by an ideological agenda that they have internalised, and they see the world through its lens. How have they internalised it? By living in a society governed by the values that Hollywood promotes. Now anything that is threatening to their ideology, they perceive as dangerous, and seek to destroy. They cannot see the world straight. That is the problem.

Again, it is almost impossible to find a conservative at these media agencies. You think Don Lemon, etc. are conservatives? :s Why not? Because of the peer pressure and culture of the place which shapes people into what they have to be in order to work there. It's quite an unconscious thing.

You also must understand, with Trump it is not 'conservative vs liberal or 'republican vs democrat'. There are many Republicans and conservatives, who think that Trump has hijacked their party, who are deeply furious with his lies and lack of principle. There are formal groups called "Republicans Against Trump'. By all means, be conservative, support the Republican Party, but you need to understand that Trump hates the Republican party. He routinely belittles and derides its leadership, trashes its policies and undermines its ability to get its legislation passed. And this is what you're defending. — Wayfarer

I am not a Republican. My support for Trump is above the support for the Republican Party. It is a party full of cronies and profiteering monkeys, I would not support them. I may support individual people from within the Republican Party, but not the party as such. So I am absolutely happy when I see Trump hammering away at the Republican leadership. That is exactly what I think should be done.

You think for example I supported George W. Bush? :s

Democracy is the least worst option. It often totally sucks, but how is the alternative NOT some form of tyranny? The only thing that is between Trump and martial law, are the democratic institutions and the press. — Wayfarer

Well, to begin with, there are other non-democratic systems that are not tyrannical. Tyranny means irrational authority. But a constitutional monarchy for example would be a rational form of authority, and therefore good. I much agree with Plato - society should be ruled by philosopher kings.

And I'm sorry to say, but I think JornDoe has you pretty well nailed. — Wayfarer

Well, sorry to tell you but are you now suggesting that I am:

anti-vaxxer, geocentrist, young Earth creationist, flat Earth'er, Moon-landing-denier — jorndoe

That is an outright lie.

:D Agustino, for some reason I picture you as some combination of opportunist, evolution-denier, anti-vaxxer, geocentrist, young Earth creationist, flat Earth'er, Moon-landing-denier, conspiracy theorist, proud supernaturalist, wannabe rebel, arrogant troll, misogynist, non-empathetic mental barbarian, with imaginary friends in higher places. — jorndoe

A vomit of insults - sometimes one needs to vomit to get the poison out. Feel better now? ;)

Next time, try not to drink so much my friend.

You should have a look at After Virtue to see what I'm talking about when I say rational moral framework...

What tools and means would those be - that we once had but no longer do? — creativesoul

A rational moral framework. Rational discourse.

To quite the contrary, I'm reporting upon what I've witnessed and/or actively been a part of myself. — creativesoul

Yes, I've witnessed this too, but the religious people who did that came on the losing end.

Religions are not at all equivalent to a way of life. — creativesoul

They are. If you cannot see the blindingly obvious thing that the ways of life of religious people are different, then there's not much I can do.

Getting along doesn't necessitate the destruction of any belief other than those which make it impossible to get along. There are people who claim to be from every religion that harbor those. — creativesoul

Okay, so if I maintain that abortion is immoral and you maintain that it's not, how are we going to get along when we as a society have to act one way or the other? :s

What makes ethical statements different to other statements is that they are supposedly what everyone ought do. — Banno

Indeed, and everyone ought to do them because if they don't, then the particular way of life that the ethics sustains becomes impossible.

Agustino's Hindu, Muslim and Catholic might agree in their condemnation of the atheist, but once the atheist is gone that agreement will break as they take to each other. — Banno

That is indeed possible, and that was the case in the past. However, one would hope that we have reached sufficient enlightenment to realize that all religions strive to reach after truth, even if some may reach higher than others.

A fascist accepts that fascists may use coercion; Islamists accept that muslims can use coercion; but liberal ethics holds that my freedom ends at the tip of your nose. — Banno

We need to define our terms here. In my mind "coercion" is the use of physical force, applied with the permission of the law, to enforce moral standards. I am against that kind of coercion. Morality must be freely chosen.

OF course there are liberals who coerce; that's a problem. But the proper liberal response is to protest and reject coercion in the name of liberalism. — Banno

But liberalism is a problem, not a solution. Liberalism seems to presuppose that my freedom can be conceived independently from yours. Each individual is seen as an atom, separate but relating with the others. Whereas I think the reality is that people are more like links in a chain, we're intimately related one with the other, such that my freedom must always be conceived also in terms of your freedom. That is why you say:

but liberal ethics holds that my freedom ends at the tip of your nose. — Banno

This is the profound mistake. My freedom cannot end at the tip of your nose because we are so intimately related that what you do can limit my freedom. For example, take abortion. The liberal argues that the woman should be able to choose what she does with her body - in this case whether she has sex and whether she chooses to keep the baby or not. But this is not at all the case - because in reality her freedom to decide impacts both the baby's freedom (by killing him/her it is taken away) and also her partner (who may have wanted to keep the baby). Thus it is not at all clear that "my freedom ends at the tip of your nose". It may be possible that what is going on inside your nose affects me, and limits my freedom - and you OUGHT to take this into account, even if you ultimately have to decide. If you become a totalitarian now and say "it's none of your business, it's my decision, bla bla" you have oppressed me. If you refuse to take into account other people who may be affected by your actions on account of your freedom, then you have oppressed. And most self-styled liberals today do exactly this. And you have done so under the magic of an illusion (a false conception of freedom).

A liberal framework is the only option I am aware of that allows detente. — Banno

I don't think so. I think quite the contrary, the liberal framework intensifies conflict by putting a rug over it and covering it up under a set of assumptions (such as the conception of freedom) which does not reflect reality. It is nothing but magic.

[DELETED]

I wrote a long impassioned response here, but - forget about it. I'm here to discuss philosophy not sound off. — Wayfarer

Okay I see. I did manage to read your post before you deleted though, but I will not go over all the points since you have removed it, something that I think was a good thing!

Suffice to say that there are some points which you mentioned with which I agree regarding Trump, and some that I disagree with. The biggest one I disagree with is that Trump lies worse than other politicians. He doesn't. If anything, I'd say he's more honest, even if it ends up badly for him. You have yet to show me that Trump says whatever it takes to get elected, to be popular, etc.

The problem with saying Trump lies is that the media is nit picking. For example, they say he lied about Mexico paying for the wall. No he didn't. He just changed from saying Mexico will pay to Mexico will reimburse the US for it. So what? His intention remains the same, at least as he voices it, that Mexico will pay. That's not lying in my mind. Lying would be to be like "Nah, Mexico ain't gonna pay anymore, it will be all on us!"

The other point that I wanted to address is that you suggested I have a hang up with authority, and I fear that order will dissolve. Well, I have very little to fear, because as far as I'm concerned order has already - long ago - dissolved. Probably order has dissolved more than 100 years ago already!! We've really got nothing to lose by this point. This is all an effort to restore order, with - I will give you that - a low probability of success.

As for my hang up with authority being due to coming from a more authoritarian regime which has dissolved, that's false since I hold it that Communist rule was worse than post-communist rule, and in fact Communist rule is responsible for the troubles that Eastern European countries face today.

As for the fact that you noticed that I'm against democracy, well that's no secret. Democracy is the worst system of government, with the sole exception of tyranny which is indeed worse. In fact, democracy is also a tyranny - it's called the tyranny of the majority. The majority can only ever be average - thus democracy is a force that pulls society towards the average, the mediocre. The behaviour of the mediocre, their way of life - that is what gets promoted in democracy, that is what is valued. A spiritual person can only be opposed to democracy - this nefarious system of government that has killed both Jesus and Socrates. "Who do you want?" - "Uhhh we want Barabbas, we want Barabbas!" say the stupid masses - "And what shall I do with Jesus whom they call Christ?" - "Crucify Him, Crucify Him!"

The masses are animals, who have never understood the enlightened man. In fact, they have tried to kill him. Spinoza was stabbed and isolated. Schopenhauer could not find his entire life a true kindred soul. All the wise men of history have been forced to live in caves and in isolation. The masses are a danger to the wise man, and they have to be ruled, as Spinoza said, through hope and fear.

A spiritual person cannot be a democrat. That would be a contradiction in terms.

He's hired many big businessmen into government. He still owns the Trump Organization, refusing to divest from it. — Michael

Yes, he has. Richest White House team in history. So what? I'm not judging his hirelings, I'm judging him now.

This is confusing. Trump is very pro-business. Most of his executive orders seem to be aimed at reducing regulations, and he has plans to reduce corporate tax. — Michael

Okay, I don't think those things are bad in themselves.

He still owns the Trump Organization, refusing to divest from it. — Michael

Yes, he apparently does, but isn't actively involved in running it. Is that a problem?

And it isn't accurate to say that he sticks it in the face of the media, given his love of Fox & Friends, Sean Hannity — Michael

It's true he's friendlier with Fox, but Fox has a better and more truthful portrayal of what he does than the other media channels. But even Fox is critical at times, and Trump is also critical of Fox (though not of Sean Hannity >:O )

and Steve Bannon (who he gave a powerful position in the White House) — Michael

Whom he just fired.

He just lashes out at anyone that is critical of him. — Michael

He does seem to have that tendency, yes.

That's got nothing to do with some righteous fight against the "evil" newspapers and everything to do with him being a narcissist. Anything he doesn't like he just proclaims to be "Fake News". — Michael

So he supported not taking down the statues because the media lashed at him? :s

>:O >:O

And Trump hasn't done anything comparable (or worse)? — Michael

As far as I know, not really. He has maybe been cruel in some business deals, but I wouldn't say he's actually done as much as Clinton. In terms of personal sexual morality, he might be worse off than Hillary Clinton though, I can grant that.

So if some celebrity offered people a blowjob to vote for Trump then that's a reason not to support him? — Michael

No, if you read what I said, you'll see that I clarify further on that:

Madona offered people a blowjob to vote for Hillary Clinton - that already is sufficient not to support Hillary. The fact that she associated herself with such people is sufficient. — Agustino

She could have come out and said that she thanks Madona for her support, but her comment was not decent, and women aren't sexual objects who are only good for sex, and therefore we as a society shouldn't try to promote that image. But she didn't. Instead, she gladly accepted Madona's support, and not only, but she spoke with her, she invited her to her rallies, and so on so forth. That is already going too far. Such a person lacks integrity and backbone. She would do anything probably - including probably give a blowjob herself - if it could get her elected. That's terrible. A President should have integrity and should be willing to go against public opinion when public opinion is wrong. Clinton hasn't shown the capacity for that at all.

In addition, this affiliation between Presidents and celebrities - and Obama was already doing this stupid crap - is very very pernicious. Hollywood has no place at all in politics. We risk setting a very dangerous precedent if we allow Hollywood to influence elections and garner at some point even the power to decide who the winner is.

Trump, on the other hand, disavowed the KKK when they endorsed him. Whether he did it honestly or not doesn't matter right now, since we're only talking about the public statements that they made. The fact remains that publicly he disavowed it, which isn't what Clinton did with regards to those supporters of her.

I don't even know what it is you actually like about Trump. It's all very vague ("he's noble and has a good soul"). — Michael

No, I never said he's a noble and a good soul. I said that his impulse - to defend the statues from being taken down - is noble and good. The thing with Trump is that he is unconsciously good. He does not realize what he is doing, but some of the impulses he has are good. In fact, if you read what I said:

And what's so bad about Trump? Yes he's a narcissist. So what? His politics is still better than the politics of the non-narcissist but Crooked Hillary. — Agustino

Far from suggesting Trump is a good character, I said his character doesn't matter as much since his politics are still better than Clinton's.

He is upset that people are pulling down the statues in US, and destroying the heritage of the country. That is the sign of a good soul, of nobility. — Agustino

This shouldn't suggest Trump has a good character or soul - for then it would contradict the above. It should rather suggest that Trump has intimations of a good character or soul. I'd say those tendencies that he has, are unconscious - they're just deeply ingrained in him.

Or are there specific policies that he has implemented (or wants to implement) that you agree with, like the Muslim or transgender ban or the Mexican wall? — Michael

Whether I agree with them or not isn't very relevant to the discussion. And that's because morally speaking I'm indifferent to whether we build a wall between US or Mexico, whether Muslims from certain countries are banned from entering US, whether transgenders can or can't serve in the US Army, etc. These decisions are morally indifferent to me. They should be purely pragmatic decisions. Sure, I have preferences on them, but I wouldn't worry for a second if we chose to take the opposite course of action.

What I do want is to destroy the stupid political correctness that is like "OMG we can't build a wall, great nations don't build walls, we're all friends etc. etc." - they're trying to make a moral issue out of a non-moral issue, and in that I have to fight them. A country has absolute right to build a wall, to say these people aren't coming in our country, etc. This is part of the sovereignty of a country, and it's important.

Is it just that he identifies as a Republican? — Michael

I respect him because of positions he publicly takes on issues with regards to, for example, the statues, or the military, the veterans, God, etc.

If it is just the case (as I believe it is, recalling our discussions prior to the election) that the real reason you support Trump is that you think he's the best chance at having social conservatism promoted (overturning rulings on gay marriage and abortion and the like) then it would be far more honest and productive if you just came out and admitted it, and stopped trying to pretend that Trump himself is a good guy or a competent president. — Michael

Well I've been very honest about that. I'm not going to declare that he himself is a good guy, but I have no problem declaring that he's a competent president, because he actually is. I think we do need a President who will stick it in the face of the media and the corporate world who've started to think they have an absolute right of dictating our morality and culture. Of course there's going to be a massive conflict between the President and these people, and I think we actually need that conflict, I'm very happy it's going on.

All he seems to care about is his image and his bank account. — Michael

It doesn't sound to me like a guy who cares only about his image and bank account. Certainly such a guy wouldn't show his support for not taking the statues down, and in the process get in a huge fight with the media, risk ruining his reputation, and lose out on support from part of the business community. He totally wouldn't do that. So either Trump is stupid - which he is not - or he has some noble drives inside of him that are motivating him through his own very big ego.

I don't really know who those guys are, and I don't care to either. — Wosret

Does the American news not spill over the border? :P

I'ma tell Freud's mom on you. — Wosret

Oh so you're going to do what Reince Priebus did to Anthony Scaramucci for 6 months before he could get in the White House? >:O

I actually made up that I made it up. I heard someone quote it though, and don't know where it's from exactly. — Wosret

Yeah, I thought so, I didn't mean to suggest you made it up the first time around though (I know very little & vaguely about Jung, so I just wouldn't know).

I was intending to say "oh really?" in the sense of "do you really think I'd want to have sex with her if I had seen her?". I meant that in a mischevious and playful kind of way though.

No, I made it up. — Wosret

>:O LOL, good one!

Jung said that if you had have seen Freud's mom, you'd want to have sex with her too. — Wosret

Oh really? >:)

Yes, but Freud said they do it, therefore they do do it! X-)

I don't understand it. There's a lot of depth in your other posts, even though I don't always agree with them, although in some respects I do. But then you come out in defense of the indefensible, which simply destroys your credibility. I am not going to get into another pointless argument, but I am convinced that in this regard, your judgement is flawed. — Wayfarer

The very strange thing is that I feel exactly the same way about you. You also have so much insight sometimes, you are a spiritual person, you are not blind. Moreover, you understand the value of social conservatism, you even are one, and yet you support the most monstrous of candidates - like Hillary Clinton - out of fear of someone like Trump. How can a man like you be afraid of a Trump? A Trump is very visible, but Hillary is invisible. And with her would have come the likes of Amy Schumer and Madona triumphant! Can you just imagine? Conservatives would have been expelled from the US! What would have happened with your social conservatism? Madona offered people a blowjob to vote for Hillary Clinton - that already is sufficient not to support Hillary. The fact that she associated herself with such people is sufficient. Not to mention all the corruption scandals, the deletion of 30,000 emails, her husband's behaviour towards women and her protection of him, and so on so forth. It really amazes me, your behaviour.

At least with other people around here, I can say they are very superficial and have little understanding. What else could be expected? But you have no such excuse.

How a man like you can bear to associate yourself with these people (who are the absolute opposite of all that religion and spirituality stand for) is to me inconceivable. I'd rather prefer death than to associate myself with such people.

And what's so bad about Trump? Yes he's a narcissist. So what? His politics is still better than the politics of the non-narcissist but Crooked Hillary. Look at him. He is upset that people are pulling down the statues in US, and destroying the heritage of the country. That is the sign of a good soul, of nobility. He even disrespects his advisors to hold on to this position. Hillary would instead have congratulated them for pulling the statues down! She switches her position - such as on gay marriage - with the wind. She has no integrity - even the integrity that emerges out of ego is better!

And he did that using poetics. — Banno

No, he actually did that by pointing me to the methodology of the pollsters. Then I critiqued that methodology. That's the facts of what happened. Now you may disagree with my criticism, and you can think that the methodology applied (including the mathematical analysis) is valid, but that's an entirely different story, which has little to do with the facts.

I'm with you. — Noble Dust

I am with you...

If she had those qualities, how could you ever be sure she did not take you in out of pity? — Sir2u

Ahh but is it a problem if she took me in out of pity? After all, out of all men in the world, she took pity on me and on no other! That is great! :D

Perhaps you could share just what those strategies are that can turn someone who hates your guts into somebody who realizes who you really are, and then in love falls deeply with you. — Bitter Crank

It depends from case to case. I can't specify "generally" what such strategies would be since they're always formed and applied in particular circumstances. Suffice to say that it involves making the other person want to change themselves rather than feeling they have to change because you tell them so.

Much of what you said isn't interesting. — Hanover

Okay, no problem.

Your experience offers me nothing — Hanover

Sorry about that!

What I can say is that dating is a process where you learn about the other person over time, and over that time you often learn they're not the right match for you. — Hanover

That depends. Do you start dating a stranger? I wouldn't. First I would be very good friends with that person, spend a lot of time with them, etc. I should at least have some sort of idea who they are by the time I go out with them, wouldn't you say so? So in this case dating would be a process wherein I learn MORE about the other person and am more intimate with them, but whether or not they're the right match would already have been determined with a good degree of certainty beforehand.

If that weren't the case, everyone would marry their first girlfriend or boyfriend and live happily ever after. — Hanover

Well sure, and some people do.

Edit: in a bit more detail, Michael presented a mathematical analysis in support of his claim. You did not reply in kind, but instead simply claimed that the experts could not be trusted. — Banno

He actually didn't present a mathematical analysis, he just indicated how the pollsters analysed the data they had collected. I've already critiqued that methodology and shown by example how some of the following assumptions are wrong:

That the probability distribution is normal.
That the sample is random.
That the sample is representative.
That there are no systematic errors.
That people answer honestly.
That people would actually behave as they say they'd behave if they actually had to vote. — Agustino