Yes, very true. I’m my own industry I rely on word of mouth.

I just can’t get over the metaphors, though. What do we mean by phrases like “shape what people desire”? Advertisements are not like hands and we like clay. When a man sees an advertisement that is the end of the interaction. Everything after that—whether he decides to buy the product or forgets about it—is caused by the man.

To me the narrative that trans-people are changing their gender or sex doesn’t adequately describe the situation, and presents a false hope. It suggests that when people are not happy with their body they should disfigure it. And that’s what this is. When a trans-person enters the realm of surgery and drug therapy they are disfiguring their body, nothing besides. I suspect that farther down the road, perhaps when we discover the cause, we’ll look back on this time in medicine as barbaric and unethical.

Advertisement is fine and harmless. It only provides information. It lets others know of the existence of your product or service, which is almost necessary these days because awareness of your product is the first step to selling it.

Advertisement is not a force, though. It cannot push people to this or that outcome, whether good or bad. It cannot create anything, let alone demand or waste or an impact on someone’s health.

But there is a fine line between advertisement and graffiti.

I’m on the same kick. I didn’t know about the C E/ CE thing. Good advice.

In Canada, we’re so wedded to the CCP that they are building a massive trade center near where I live. These efforts are a part of China’s Belt and Road initiative, which, if successful, would make CCP goods and services part of the very fabric of the global economy. I suspect it will get worse before it gets any better.

I find that scientists who rails against misinformation, dissent and wrong-think are worried more about their politics and power than any science. But put simply, their theory was yet to be proven.

It wasn't too long ago the very mention of the theory would result in censorship on social media, and those who did believe it were derided as deluded conspiracy theorists. At any rate, we were not really allowed to talk about it wherever people controlled the discourse.

I’m not aware of the Lancet study, but the one article in The Lancet that condemned the theory immediately raised my own suspicion.

I don't think that's the case about it being partisan. Many apolitical and Democrat friends and family of mine believe the lab theory. They no longer have Trump to point to them which ideas to oppose.

Watch this recent exchange between Jon Stewart and Colbert. Colbert is still wedded to partisanship and anti-Trumpism and must keep up that charade, but Jon Stewart isn't chained to the myths of the last half-decade and is able to give a fresh voice to the lab-theory. Anyone who still opposes the lab theory at this point is just digging their feet in the ground and head in the sand.

I think the distinction lies between the belief that the existence of things and substances are either dependent on or independent of the mind.

I'm more of a pluralist and believe there are many things and substances rather than just one, so I cannot relate to your view of materialism. But I am certainly not an idealist.

History is replete with men who thought they could predict the future, and without much success. So more often or not we're faced with a chicken-little scenario than a prophetic one.

I am arguing to include employers as agents who can and do enforce strict obedience to their authority. In a different thread I'd argue that workers need more power to resist employers.

That’s very true, though I think it is much easier to change employers than it is to change state authority.

Individualism is the anthesis of collectivism, not morality. It also stresses that others have self-interest too, not to mention rights, feelings, desires, volition, autonomy, and often competing moralities. Anyone devoted to "The Other" might try remembering this before he ingratiates himself before another's self-interest, that is if he is still able to distinguish between one "Other" and the next.

Yes, it is. With each day more power is conferred to the state. Laws are created and enforced more than they are repealed. The government increases, never decreases. This progressive growth of state power represents a diminution of freedom.

I can’t get a general taste for the sentiment from living there, but from what I can see I think there is a corresponding, psychological effect among the citizens, and that is authoritarianism. Note the ease with which many allowed the politicians and bureaucrats to control them during the current theft of power. That is to be expected in European countries or Canada, but not in the US.

Nothing in individualism forbids addressing moral issues. And I would think any ideology that emphasizes the moral worth of individuals necessarily considers others, each with their own lives, personalities and dignity.

Thinking collectively is worthwhile for ease of thought and economy of language but piss poor for addressing moral issues. Once one starts thinking collectively he does so abstractly, considering the thoughts in his head long before manifesting any concern for the flesh-and-blood human beings outside of it. At any rate, it does not not follow that thinking generally, pluralistically, collectively leads to concern for others. More often than not it has led to the in-group/out-group, "othering" type of stuff as collectivist ideology has consistently proven.

You said I was a product of a highly-advanced society. I corrected that.

More like macrophages because we can move in our own. Still, yes. You are a product of a highly advanced society. What have you accomplished all in your own?

Unlike a macrophage I am the product of two individual mammals. Just this morning I picked 5lbs of spruce tips.

Human beings are like blood cells, then? I struggle to see it.

It was a good read.

Most of us, I think, have long lost our umbilical cords, and so too the last connection each of us have had with another human being. So there is no “real joining-together of the parties”; we really are separate entities. One doesn’t have to be a hermit or a piece of lego under the couch to see this.

Since no amount of figures of speech can replace the real connection the umbilical cord once provided, why try? A relationship can only ever manifest as relations between separate, individual entities. So why must we pretend we are connected in order to have one? I depart with Midgley on her organic model of personal relations for these reasons, and because she conflates individualism with isolation. I depart with it also because it can be extended to organic models of the state, which have already soaked the 20th century.

The social contract theory may provide the best justification for state power, at least as far as statism is concerned, but no state actually lives up to it or was formed in such a manner.

Midgley is plumbing with duct tape here.

It’s ironic because Schiff seized the phone records of Devin Nunez, Rudy Guilliani, Jon Solomon and more during the impeachment inquiry. The poor guy. The difference between Schiff’s investigation and the DOJ’s investigation is that one was investigating a crime, the other for political reasons.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/schiffs-surveillance-state-11575506091

The 16th amendment to the constitution didn't occur until 1913. Until then an income tax was imposed only to prop up the state in times of war. So its not because the US is a society that there is an income tax, but because the government, inspired by competing socialist and populist forces, gave itself the right to pilfer its citizen's wealth on the specious claim that politicians knew how to better use the people's wealth than they did. We can blame human nature all we want but it does not excuse the actual perpetrators of this exploitation.

...will prevent it for the greater good.

So much freedom has been sacrificed on this one prognostication. The problem is they do not nor cannot know what "the greater good" is, so it is often used as a justification for megalomania.

How do you feel about worker co-ops or similar alternatives to state ownership?

I'm all for people starting whatever associations they wish so long as it is of the voluntary variety. These co-ops and the like can then serve as shining examples for these types of associations. Ironically it is only possible to do this if they embrace rather than reject capitalism.

And that is itself a fallacy: ad vericundium (?). Populum, sorry.

I evoked the 70million+ to show that your generalizations were on the hasty side, not to say that I was right.

Not true: I associate you with Republicans, not one or two fascists or racists. As pointed out, Republicans (especially including any of those 70 million) had their chance to divorce but made their bed. They are now Trumpsters. Sorry, that's on them. If they want to turn their backs on him, denounce him, endeavor to return to the community of man, they can. You can too. But you'll have to leave the Republican Party to do it.

I’m a registered independent, “unaffiliated”. I cannot vote in any primary in my home state even if I wanted to. But I wager none of this absolves me from any sweeping generalizations.

Again, using the same hatred and the same behavior does not allow you to paint me as you or them, nor do I paint myself as such. It's the thinking which is palpably different. My thinking is right, and your thinking is wrong. The simple fact that we both think does not make us alike. There is no fallacy when you are what you are. You defend Trump who is the Republican Party. I'd beseech you to leave, to come home, but I know how you feel about the community of man. You want the best of both worlds. Understandable, but so is ostracization or, less than that, remonstration.

Sure it does. Your rhetoric is one of groupthink, in-group/out-group stuff, "othering" and all that piffle. If this is how your "community of man" operates I want no part of it in any case.

Businesses are often created from the ground up at much cost and effort, and those who did so have every right to control the operation of their own creation as a matter of property rights. I can’t see anything inherently evil in this dynamic because it isn’t obligatory. One can, if she wants, create her own enterprise and run it how she sees fit.

I see evil wherever people beg those in power to force businesses to this or that end, whether it be wages, benefits, and the like. The idea that we should transfer power from the people at large to the state because we don’t want to work as much or want some sort of benefit is a greed of the highest order.

Yes, I defend Trump. Guilty as charged. So do millions of others. Over 70 million voted for him the last time I checked. But instead associating me with them you associate me with the one or two fascists you can think of.

You engage in the same species of thinking put to use by the very fascists and racists you pretend to oppose. So while I may be guilty by some tenuous association, you’re guilty of using the same fallacies, the same hatred, and the same behavior.

Like anything, it depends. I personally don't think it's healthy to have division about climate change -- that's something that should be agreed upon, as it was a few years ago before the Koch network took the Big Tobacco playbook and manufactured controversy.

But as for responsibility for legislation -- yes, which is precisely why both parties like the idea. Except for the top priorities (i.e., what their corporate constituents want), they'd prefer to have the congress dysfunctional. That's why McConnell didn't break the filibuster for major non-budgetary legislation -- because his top priority was reshaping the courts and cutting taxes. Since the Republicans have no ideas beyond that, having everything else be completely stalled -- now and in the future -- was the best bet.

Think also of the strategy of "political triangulation", taking an opponent's policies as one's own, not for any principled reason but strictly for syphoning votes and retaining power. This strategy tends to hollow out each party, shifting their principles until they are nearly indistinguishable. I fear this approach and bipartisanship results in the uniparty we are now looking at.

That is fair and a far more reasonable approach. I even agree that Trump probably, if not obviously, used the opportunity for the photo op.

It's a common fallacy and you have every right to operate in that manner. But I suspect rather than respect that opinion.

Pretty simple. No-one can prove the intention of clearing the park for his photo OP was part of Trump's input into the decision making process here. Because a) Maybe he was smart enough not to explicitly state that or b) It wasn't. We don't know. Only a clown would claim something has been proven here.

The evidence provided by the report proves quite a bit. Those who planned the operation explicitly stated their intentions and reasons for clearing the park. If any evidence to the contrary arises be sure to let me know.

Guilt by association. Classic.

You can't prove the unstated intention here true or false. You can only infer one way or the other. We are engaged in speculation. The fact you don't seem to understand that is comical.

The intentions of those who cleared the park were made explicit by everyone involved in doing so. It was backed up by testimony, video, emails.

Have you read the report?

Dude, if you think you can convince anyone here that you have special access to Donnie's soul such that you can ascertain his pristine intentions re all this, you are a seriously lost soul. It is totally reasonably to infer the intention outlined based on character and history. He doesn't have to tattoo it across his orange mug.

I'm not sure any of these inferences are reasonable if they are continuously proven false.

The report clears the USPP. It says nothing about Trump's decision to appear, how this was coordinated, or what measures were taken to assure his safe passage. It simply states that the USPP played no role. But the USPP was not the only policing agency involved. The report does not exonerate Trump, as he claimed, at best it exonerates the USPP.

All of that is irrelevant to the fantasy that Trump cleared the square for his photo op. The square was cleared to provide the contractor a safe environment to put up the fence.

NYT story: Protesters Dispersed With Tear Gas So Trump Could Pose at Church. False. They were dispersed to provide the contractor a safe environment to put up the fence.

NPR story: Peaceful Protesters Tear-Gassed To Clear Way For Trump Church Photo-Op. False. The often-violent protesters were cleared to provide the contractor a safe environment to put up the fence.

You're right. Bipartisanship is problem, like any coalition style of governing, because it absolves the politicians and their party of responsibility for their legislation. So in your metaphor about the meteor or climate disaster, if bipartisanship reigns, the politicians and party who legislated wrongly will not receive their comeuppance.

Division, to me, is the sign of a healthy politics.

The report says quite a bit about other agencies.

Our oversight obligations are focused on the DOI, and our authority to obtain documents and statements from non-DOI entities is more limited. We nonetheless obtained radio transmissions from the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) related to its policing of the protests on June 1 and body camera video from an MPD liaison officer in Lafayette Park. At MPD’s request, we also interviewed an MPD assistant chief of police. We obtained videos from the Secret Service’s observation cameras positioned throughout the Lafayette Park area. The Arlington County Police Department (ACPD) also provided documents and radio transmissions related to its assistance at the park on June 1, and three ACPD members consented to voluntary interviews. We interviewed a DC National Guard (DCNG) major who served as the DCNG’s liaison to the USPP during the June 1 operation and testified before Congress regarding the events at Lafayette Park. We also received emails and other documents from the fencing contractor through the Secret Service and conducted voluntary interviews of the fencing contractor’s president/cofounder and project manager. The Secret Service also provided us with documentary evidence, such as operational timelines, documents and emails related to the procurement of the antiscale fencing, emails between Secret Service officials and USPP officials, and radio transmissions from the radio channel used by the Secret Service unit that deployed onto H Street.

https://www.doioig.gov/sites/doioig.gov/files/SpecialReview_USPPActionsAtLafayettePark_Public_0.pdf

But none of that matters because it is also clear from the report that the Park Police, with support of other agencies, cleared the park in order to allow contractors to build a fence, and did so in response to the continuing violence against officers and the vandalism of federal property.

Inserting other motivations into the minds of others, without the evidence to do so, is an act of fantasy or projection. That's what the media has done here and they spread this misinformation all over the world. Hell, even on this board people spread it and believed it. Sadly, I was the only one here—on a philosophy board of all places—that noticed the error in their reasoning.

There was no evidence he cleared the park for a photo-op. This fantasy was the going rate for quite a time. It’s in the title of the article I posted earlier, which you responded to, and was the entire reason Congress wanted the investigation.

Let me guess: you believed it, even when there was no evidence. You believe it still, even with evidence to the contrary.

Another myth dispelled. Who believed this lie?

Report: Park Police Didn’t Clear Lafayette Square Protesters for Photo Op

Does it work this way for other rights? Doesn't restraining or injuring or even killing someone who is about to kill someone else violate their general right of bodily autonomy and freedom of movement?

Rights are not absolute "bubbles" that extend a certain given distance at all times. They're rules that apportion a territory given by the circumstances.

Yes it does but only because they are about to violate the general right of bodily autonomy and freedom of someone else. Rather, one defends these rights and freedoms by stopping people from trampling on them and denying them of others. I don't the same cannot be said of forcing someone to provide the conditions for someone else's free self-expression of actualization.

What's contradictory about it?

Wouldn’t forcing someone to do something against their will contradict their general right of free self-expression of actualization?