Is putting people into a situation where they have to produce in order to survive, its own exploitation of people? If not, why not? No one chose that the initial conditions of how life works (like producing something for someone to survive), yet we assume that it is good that people must endure. Why? How is this not immoral/evil and at the least exploitative of people?

It wouldn't be exploitation because survival doesn't necessary involve the forced appropriation of unpaid labor. One must labor for his survival, sure, but it makes little sense to say one must be exploited in order to survive.

Forcibly entering the chambers of congress with the intent of overturning the results of a free and fair election. That’s not insurrection?

No one has yet to be charged with the crime of insurrection, let alone convicted of it. So according to those with the authority to make such judgements, the answer is no.

Frankly, he wasn’t a great leader in this instance. His idea that the crowd would be “marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”, to “cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women” wasn’t followed. In fact, the violence had started before he finished speaking, both on the same day and the night before. The theory he desired a coup is contrary to his explicit statements from both before and after the event. No charge of insurrection has been levied; probably the worst charge was assault. On top of that, the defence in the impeachment trial was a sufficient refutation of the insurrection theory.

America did survive the insurrection for the simple reason there wasn’t one.

This sentiment is precisely what I wanted to express earlier. The issue of pornography - how the demand for it sustains a large-scale industry and how, simultaneously, there are many are against it - brings to the fore a very intriguing facet to hedonism-based morality which is, if you haven't guessed already, that not all pleasurable things are good. The puzzle of pornography - how well it runs and how bad we feel because of that - is just one of the many ways in which the marriage between hedonism and morality falls apart.

Conversely, if masochists have anything to say about it, not all painful things are bad.

One of the paradoxes of modern liberalism is that it has become increasingly liberal in moral affairs and increasingly controlled in economic affairs. While it gets easier for a horny lad to engage in behavior that satisfies an every-expanding array of kinks, a growing body of external regulations prohibit his deviation from orthodox productivity.

I, for one, welcome the end of moral coercion (as Mill called it), but without a corresponding decline in economic coercion, I think the only direction we can go is towards a libertine rather than libertarian society.

I’m surprised you didn’t mention Russian disinfo.

Here’s a weird story in the Hunter Biden saga. Imagine if this was someone else’s son.

On Oct. 23, 2018, President Joe Biden’s son Hunter and daughter in law Hallie were involved in a bizarre incident in which Hallie took Hunter’s gun and threw it in a trash can behind a grocery store, only to return later to find it gone.

Delaware police began investigating, concerned that the trash can was across from a high school and that the missing gun could be used in a crime, according to law enforcement officials and a copy of the police report obtained by POLITICO.

But a curious thing happened at the time: Secret Service agents approached the owner of the store where Hunter bought the gun and asked to take the paperwork involving the sale, according to two people, one of whom has firsthand knowledge of the episode and the other was briefed by a Secret Service agent after the fact.

The gun store owner refused to supply the paperwork, suspecting that the Secret Service officers wanted to hide Hunter’s ownership of the missing gun in case it were to be involved in a crime, the two people said. The owner, Ron Palmieri, later turned over the papers to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, which oversees federal gun laws.

The Secret Service says it has no record of its agents investigating the incident, and Joe Biden, who was not under protection at the time, said through a spokesperson he has no knowledge of any Secret Service involvement.

Days later, the gun was returned by an older man who regularly rummages through the grocery’s store’s trash to collect recyclable items, according to people familiar with the situation.

The incident did not result in charges or arrests.

https://www.politico.com/news/2021/03/25/sources-secret-service-inserted-itself-into-case-of-hunter-bidens-gun-477879

It’s an invitation to you to prove your smears. If you can assert I don’t recognize facts, surely you can name a fact I do not recognize. If I have not recognized a fact maybe I can explain why I don’t. If I wasn’t clear I can clarify. If I was wrong I will admit it. But if you will not let me defend myself, or as always, weasel away, why bother? If this is the intellectualism you’re trying to protect, then yes, consider me opposed.

You don't recognise facts.

Name one.

It was my point. The only answer to my question “which expert will teach us which expert we should believe?” is ourselves.

You assumed my view and intention without evidence. Had you asked me what they were instead of levying false accusations we might be in less of a quarrel. So much for common ground.

Medical malpractice is one of the leading causes of death in the US. It’s why we get second opinions, or more. So yes, I believe it is prudent to treat expert opinion with a little skepticism.

It was my point that it is up to us to evaluate expert opinion, and here you are restating my point after accusing me of anti-intellectualism and trusting another user on some message board. Just brilliant.

There is no answer to the question “Do you trust all experts?”

It’s a yes or no question. That is factually incorrect. Pesky facts.

I didn’t think you would be able answer. More fee-fees. Cheers.

The point is that you seek to undermine expertise and end up putting your trust in Synthesis' beliefs.

I just said “I think I get your point”. Pesky facts.

Do you trust all experts?

The point was about which expert to trust, and if we believed all of them we would believe contradictory things. Over your head and below your knees, I suppose.

I do not reject expert opinion. I reject appeals to authority.

But there is no point in arguing with you. You don't recognise facts. Hence there can be no common ground.

All I’ve ever read from you were unwarranted opinions derived from your fee-fees. If you ever mention facts I’ll be sure to consider them.

Classic anti-intellectualism. This is why no one trusts NOS4A2

Not much of an argument, but it’s Banno and we shouldn’t expect much else.

The only claim I made is that I do not know the answer.

Creation involves a creator. One scenario necessarily involves creators while the other doesn’t. I don’t see any contradiction here.

My point is it isn’t my duty to educate you.

What cover-up? How well-established? You have no credibility. All evidence and only evidence, please.

You don’t know about any of this, do you? Who should we blame for your ignorance?

I’m not concerned; you couldn’t hit a fish in a barrel anyways. As for the lab theory, I don’t claim to know the answer. I do know that accidents happen, the CCP hasn’t been forthcoming with the data, and that their cover-up has been well established. Why would you dismiss this theory?

Yes, all you have left is to disregard someone’s expertise on political grounds, or for some other specious reason, which in my mind isn’t too bright.

The point is that given the conflicting expert opinions, anyone who proposes listening to experts is left going in circles. At some point he must make up his own mind and come to his own conclusions.

I think I get your point.

Speaking of expert opinion, this expert believes the virus escaped from the Wuhan lab, which presumably also employs experts. Experts at the WHO say the idea it escaped from the lab as “extremely unlikely”, even though Chinese experts refused to give raw data. So which expert will teach us which expert we should believe?

Well said.

Entire generations have been taught to leave their responsibility to protect themselves at the feet of the paternalistic government. In that sense they are unweaned.

And I thought it ironic that fighting for those freedoms involved coordinating on a federal level in exactly the way that you seem to be opposing. I gave examples of it including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, and certainly WW2.

By saying “fighting for those freedoms” I didn’t necessarily mean war. Personally, I wouldn’t use the example of a federal coordination towards mass death and destruction as an example of good government.

Disregard, another unsupported claim by our resident fabricator of same.

Another example of Tim’s bigotry.

How could we tell if consciousness “emerges” in one world but not the other? Would everyone in one world be awake, in the other asleep?

No, I mean the covid restrictions.

The lockdowns and restrictions were a failure of government. Even with all their resources, they were unable to devise a plan that would protect the aged population and while maintaining the freedoms so many have fought and died to attain. So I would prefer that bureaucrats, politicians and public health officials had lied down for everyone else.

One issue I’ve always had with identity theory is that all brain states are body states. Brains are only a part of much greater dynamic system. Brains are unable to survive, let alone think or feel, outside the rest of the organism.

Brain/body dualism. To avoid replacing one dualism with another, we should consider that mind states are body states.

Yes. I do not want god to exist because the thought of a celestial dictator and abject slavery is terrifying.

When we are speaking about consciousness, darkness, happiness etc... we are debating about something that happens in our lives.

That’s the problem I have: none of those can be categorized as a “something” in my view, so I’m left wondering what exactly in the universe we are speaking about.

Consider Nagel’s assumption that “we all believe that bats have experience”. Am I wrong to object and argue bats have nothing of the sort? that his famous essay is a round-about way of saying humans do not have bat bodies? Or should I forgive him this, and say “Well, it’s the limitations of language”?

They are power and money-grubbing corporate elites who have deemed themselves fit enough to manage the public purse.

That’s my point. Now they’re back in power.

My point is that your good men use their positions of power to enrich themselves, not the people they have vowed to serve.

Apparently doing a stint in government is a great way to land massive corporate gigs. Instead of bribing them outright, a lobbyist can just offer them gigs once their stint is over.

Obama-era officials return to White House worth millions

I think it’s the other way about: to avoid hardship. If one can occupy himself with the battles in his skull he need not pay attention to the ones that require actual effort.

I think this method is inherent in socialism. It’s a false philanthropy because it seeks to delegate any duty we have to our fellow man to someone else, whether society as a whole or some other group.