‘To choose’ implies that a set of options exists *from which one chooses*. I don’t see how else ‘to choose’ could be understood. So in order for one to be able to choose their thoughts, they would have to be able to *think* of several options and choose one of them to be their next thought *without thinking their next thought in the process*, which is of course impossible.

If this is correct, does this automatically rule out the possibility of free will?

It doesn’t. To rule out the possibility of free will one will have to show that thoughts, or any action for that matter, comes from somewhere or someone else.

Well said. It is a phenomenon on the level of mass psychosis, even a religion. He’s both folk hero to his supporters and folk devil to his detractors at the same time.

Fair enough. But, just to say, we can read the opinions of the highest court in the land to discover why in fact it was overturned.

What if RBG didn’t die? Any speculations on what would have happened had she lived?

Trump finally announced his candidacy for the 2024 presidential election. Get your popcorn.

Counterfactuals. Such speculation is fun, no doubt.

I believe his point was that Congress would have protected abortion by federal law, in the same way that they plan to protect same-sex marriage by federal law.

Is it a “They would have” but they didn’t, sort of argument?

Yeah, they're definitely both the same. One party believes in climate change, the other says it's a hoax. Minor differences.

Bipartisan Senate Climate Solutions Caucus
Conservative Climate Caucus

I apologize and thanks for clarifying. The legal outcome, though, is decided by the Supreme Court, and has zero to do with party politics. My point was that the parties can avoid this by amending the constitution so as to make it unequivocal. Thanks for the last word.

A non-sequitur is when the logic does not follow. I thought we were talking about the differences between the two parties. Then you mentioned Supreme Court decisions, for some reason.

That's quite a non-sequitur.

I’m not sure how. As I understand it SCOTUS ruled that abortion was not a protected right under the Constitution in that case.

Dobbs would not have happened if the Senate was Democratic during the last half of Obama's second term or while Trump was president.

It would not have happened if there was an amendment to the constitution affording people the right to an abortion.

The only viewpoint under consideration when it comes to voting is deciding which person you want to decide matters for you.

None of which was legislated in congress.

I’m against voting in general. But I don’t think we should get rid of the parties. Parties can change. Party civil wars are welcome, in my opinion.

A dead guy was elected in Pennsylvania. It reminds me of the Artemis Ward quote, “inasmuch as we don't seem to have a live statesman in our National Congress, let us by all means have a first-class corpse”. The absolute state of American elections.

It isn’t the two-party system that’s the problem—proportional representation, where those voted out can still cling to power in their coalitions and minority governments, is stupid. It’s that there isn’t an effective opposition. You could not get a sheet of paper between the official positions of the two parties.

Is there any justification for censorship of any kind?
If so - where, when, why and by whom?

The most pernicious justification for censorship at any institutional level that I notice is that such and such information will cause harm, and is therefor dangerous. But invariably, and at its core, the motivation of the censor is that there exists information he does not like (or his masters do not like) and he does not want others to see it. He will deprive others of their right to receive and impart information so that this motivation will be satiated. It’s a pitiable existence.

The Hitler example was an ad aburdum of the unforeseen consequence of an action. And in that sense we have to predict the future before we act and make assumption about the results of our choices. On forming some beliefs about future outcomes we can decide to act.

This is one of the perils of utilitarianism. One cannot fathom the entire results of one’s actions, and one can never be sure what will produce the greatest good to the greater number. Too many variables, I suppose. This is what the baby Hitler thought experiment reveals. People are willing to kill an innocent child to prevent a future catastrophe on what amounts to a hunch. No matter how positive he was that this child would murder millions, he will never find a beneficiary of that action, he will never be able to justify his motives by showing us something in the world, and the reality that he has sacrificed a child to an idea will eventually set in. In adding up the sum total of goods to the greatest number, he has instead propagated more evil than he has good.

There is an alternate, an old one: do Justice though the heavens fall. With this in mind one can survey his actions according to justice rather than utility, consequences be damned. The just at least reserve some sense of dignity in dealing with others and are generally superior moral exemplars than any utilitarian.

I suppose that as we age we develop a set of moral principles with which we will live by. We justify our actions according to these principles, and in so doing subject them to a series of trial-and-error tests in various social interactions throughout life, but mostly earlier life.

So where does the crisis come from? My guess is that continuing to justify actions by reference to rules or teleology beyond early adulthood only hamstrings this development, or at least hinders one from moving beyond the stage where one guides his actions in order to avoid censure from social authorities. I wager that this lack of moral testing, so to speak, is especially prevalent in regions of conduct and behavior that are most subject to external moral constraints, such as law. The region where conduct is controlled by law so far encroaches upon the region of free choice that the trial-and-error stage of moral development is incomplete, and one’s conscience doesn’t get a chance to be field-tested. So he is morally adrift without a paddle.

Linguistic activity does not have the causal effects you claim they do. At best such activity makes concrete what the speaker thinks. Here they reveal what Isaac thinks, nothing more. The effects on me never manifest, however. I’ll be sure to let you know if they do, though.

Yes, the cat is looking a bit hungry, maybe I ought to feed it.

I didn’t feel anything this time, unfortunately. I suppose a higher quality of sorcery is likelier to have an effect.

Would you say propaganda works on everyone, without fail?



It’s nice to know my words have an effect on you. Yours as well. And such an effect they’ve had that we’ve adopted each other’s positions.

Watch Christopher Hitchens yell “fire” in a crowded theater here:

Does another’s inflammatory words convince you to do evil, jorndoe?

Maybe congress is just that terrible. These people are worthy of contempt. They make shitty laws, spend vast sums of taxpayer dollars on pork and boondoggles, and represent only the worst of society.

It isn't an issue with the value—each of us are one of a kind, wholly unique, something the universe will never see again—but with how we value. We tend to put value on nothings, for instance the non-physical and supernatural, but in doing so devalue what is present and real.

I’m not so sure about that. If the monopoly on healthcare were to fall, I’m sure men could devise some other scheme that doesn’t involve them becoming state agents.

The shortage here is entirely state manufactured. Around 2,500 health-care employees have been fired around the province for refusing to get vaccinated, for example. This was during a time when it was all hands on deck, so to speak, the system already overwhelmed. It’s no wonder people don’t want to work there anymore. At any rate, so-called universal healthcare loses its wring when very few can access it.

I’m only aware of private clinics, with laws varying across provinces. Provincial laws here prohibit staying overnight in a private clinic, for example, limiting access to healthcare. Meanwhile public emergency rooms are shutting their doors, unable to hire nurses and doctors, pushing back surgeries, and so on, putting entire communities at risk.

I think abolishing the state is a bad idea so long so long as people believe the state is required to govern their affairs.

We have private healthcare where I live. Meanwhile, our public healthcare system is collapsing.

Authority of any kind has to prove its legitimacy, especially state authority. It hasn’t. So I don’t think it has a legitimate role, nor do I think they can be improved. I do think we should stop thinking in statist terms.

I don't think you're particularly well informed on the issue, then.

It’s a point of fact that government was not required for healthcare, only that it has developed a monopoly on it.

Are you claiming that without the state these things would not occur?

No, I’m just wondering if you developed ideas, principles, and corresponding behaviors in a state that promotes war, slavery, bigotry, imperialism, you name it.

I just told you it is. Without Medicare, most US hospitals would have to close their doors.

And I just disagreed with you for the reasons I stated.

American healthcare, as we know it today, wouldn't be possible without Medicare funding.

You want to go back to 1960s funding, but keep the same level of care? I don't think that's going to work.

I didn’t say I want to go back to any sort of funding, only pointing out government funding isn’t required for healthcare.

I did, but did so within a state that promoted equality and the values of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is evident that not everyone in this state abides by these principles, at least when it comes to how they treat others.

And there is not one single value the that it hasn’t violated. It also promotes war, racism, brigandage, robbery, you name it.

So is that that you are not opposed to statism but rather to particular practices of the state?

I’m opposed to both, though I have always admitted my own statism.

I have not stated a position. I recognize that we enjoy certain benefits being citizens of a state, but do not accept your view that citizens are slaves.

Slaves had certain benefits. Their master would feed and house them, for example.

You didn’t develop any ideas, principles, and corresponding behaviors as you grew up? How do you survive?

I was speaking of funding, not practices. I assume that had you worked in one of those places you wouldn’t require a public authority to govern your day-to-day.

I’m not convinced we should do without the state. I’m only convinced the state should not operate like a criminal organization.

Your position reminds me of the happy slave myth.

Historically, hospitals have been funded from many sources, much of which were not from the government.