But this is to make corporate profit into the public good, it is not to prioritize it "over" the public good. See the difference? One says corporate profit is more important than the public good, while the other says corporate profit is the public good. But even the latter is just an illusion anyway because the profit is not shared equally by the public. — Metaphysician Undercover

I think I more or less agree. If you get a chance (ie. don't die from the corona virus in the near future), I recommend reading a book called "Economix: How and Why Our Economy Works (and Doesn't Work)" by Michael Goodwin. It explains certain thing that are not taught in economics class such as why and how companies charge as much as the can for a product and how large corporations can be as or more detrimental than large governments.

Some corporations (like people) are good, but obviously not all of them. Here in the US it is preached that corporations should be able to do whatever they like and that any government hindrance will hurt both profit and people's well being. I personally think not having corporations answerable to anyone other than their shareholders is no better than trying to run a town or city without any police and why corporations act like their in the "Wild West" when dealing with their employees and the rest of the world as a whole.

I agree on the stupidity of the "war on terrorism", but likewise I would like to know what exactly the govt should have done to "prepare for a situation like this". And do you want the govt to "prepare" for any imaginable situation? You realize that that list would be unlimited, don´t you? — Nobeernolife

The unimagined existential threats may be unlimited but the imagined existential threats are not quite so unlimited. During the time of the cold war and before the term "weapons of mass destruction" was coined the military had something they liked to called NBC warfare with the NBC referring to nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Since biological weapons can be quite different from each other (and sometimes difficult to detect and identify when deployed) there is no one size fits all plan to deal with them if and when used. However if it was all but a given that one was used then it is highly likely that the military would setup quarantine zones to contain people if it was believed if what they were exposed to was dangerous and highly infectious.

Of course we don't live in the cold war anymore and whatever those plans for dealing with biological weapons and people exposed could be all but forgotten. However even if those plans are no longer around it is almost a given that the military still has some contingency plan if some rogue country or group did something since today it is likely much easier to develop such weapons that during the cold war. I'm sure that such measures are a bit more..draconian then what most people in Westernized countries are use to but with countries like China and Italy trying to effectively quarantine entire cities it isn't entirely much different than that. The only issue is that countries that wait too long to use such measures don't benefit if there are already too many people exposed. While I'm not saying that a unmodified military plan would be best when dealing with the corona virus, I'm also not saying that a modified military plan wouldn't be better then what countries like the US are already doing.

What's that "behavior" terrible for the economy? People not wanting themselves or their loved one's to die for a preventable reason.

If people had just "taken it", carried on as usual and not bothered about shaving a few points off the demographics, things would be merrily steaming along.

Why the neoliberal intellectuals are so shocked is that governments actually have to act in the interests of the public over the stock market in this instance. It is too quick and traumatic experience to not react once that becomes clear. Which is why Western governments, each in turn, wait until the emergency status is reached before reacting; what's happening just doesn't compute in neoliberal land. People should just rollover and die for the sake of the stock market, why aren't they just sucking it up and dying! — boethius

Which is why the corona virus pandemic is almost as bad as an actual bio-weapon being released:sure it doesn't outright kill a higher percentage of people such as the viruses in movies or Steven King's book "The Stand", but having almost all the potential problems of any deadly highly infectious disease makes it what we in the philosophy business like to call a "non- trivial issue" when it comes to getting rid of it.

Governments by design are reactive not proactive, once a problem presents itself and they manage to resolve it they are more or less ready for whenever that problem happens again (such as if another Hitler wanted to invade France) but pretty slow on the draw when it comes to big problems that are a bit different to what they are use to. I'm not sure exactly if neoliberalism plays a part in it since it is likely more than just one narrative at play and it would be hard to imagine just one ideology or paradigm at fault here but I imagine it is likely just at fault as many of the others however that might not be saying a lot.

The stock market doesn't care if people die because just as Trump pointed out millions of people die from the flu every year and many people don't even bother to get flu shots. What it does care about is that the corona virus has put a nasty kink into various projections companies have made for the upcoming years and on top of that it presents a new potential existential threat to the global economy , the status quo,and the world as we know it. It's kind of like that old stock market saying "Buy when there is blood running in the streets", but that is assuming of course no of that blood is your own and that there is anything worth buying after the blood shed is over.

A curious thing about the black plague most people don't realize is that a lot of people got richer after it happen (since many people inherited money quicker/easier then if it didn't happen), the living standard improved for those that survived (reliable help was harder to find and more expensive after about 33% of the population was gone), and it may have saved Europe from even a worse fate. The problem was that before the black plague the population was either reaching it's max threshold for which the available farms could support or already there. If the plague didn't happen then it is likely as many people would have died from either starvation and/or war until more farm land could be developed. Of course, it is debatable whether dying from a plague is any better than people dying from war and starvation even if the latter may use more resources than the former.

Isn't it nice in the light of everything you just said that in the US we have spent trillions of dollars on the war on terrorism, but have spent probably less than 1% of that amount preparing then country for the situation we are in now. :/

Which is tragic on an individual scale, but will not necessarily impact society much. Even the impact of the Spanish Flu was limited, and it's still around (in less deadly strains) killing people. — Echarmion

And I guess one could say the black death in Europe which is estimated to kill 33% of the human population at the time was kind of tragic but some human being survived and life went on. However I believe it is unwise to say that pandemics that kill a large amount of the people do not in any way change society of the psyche of the human civilization.

It's likely to be a serious strain on hospitals and other healthcare providers. How bad it gets will depend on the rate of hospitalisations, how well we can protect the medical personell, and whether a vaccine is available quickly. I don't see why you think governments are "in no way equipped" to handle it. What do you think will happen? — Echarmion

I think by definition when governments fail to stop an epidemic from becoming a pandemic that reaches nearly every country in the world then it is a given they where either unable or unwilling to contain a virus. The corona virus is spreading almost as fast as if nothing was being done at all.

As to what will eventually happen while we go through this pandemic and after it is all over is unknown. It is likely that if it spread long enough that like the flu and common cold at some point it will mutate/evolve and become different strains that will resistant to existing immunity to the current strain and any vaccines that might be developed to counter it. It think it is safe to say that just like whomever opened Pandora's box, trying to get everything back to the way it was before everything came out of it and getting the lid back on will be a bit more difficult than taking the lid off in the first place.

The Spanish Flu had a significantly higher mortality rate, and hit societies which were in bad shape and had no warning. It also disproportionately affected young adults, possibly due to the war. — Echarmion

A virus doesn't have to have a high mortality rate to kill more people than viruses much more people than it, it just has to be highly contagious and spread to nearly everyone in the world to kill tens of millions. Even if the virus is 0.25% to 0.5% lethal (which are very optimistic projections for developed countries), that is still deadly enough to tens of millions of people over the next couple years.

You may not realize it but the governments of the world are in no way equipped to handle this virus if it keeps going at the rate it has been. It's not a virus that has evolved from the something like the flu but more similar to he common cold which means that is more efficient at jumping from person to person. If you were a scientist working on a bio-weapon and you wanted it to infect as many people as possible there is a good chance you would either work on a virus like the common cold and try to make it a bit more lethal or you might try and work on flu virus and make it a lot more infectious.

That can't be right. Death is a symptom. If you are asymptomatic, you don't die any more than you cough or have a temperature. And if you are asymptomatic, in most cases you don't get tested. That is why the quarantined ship makes a good statistical sample - everyone was tested. In China many were quarantined, but not tested, in general, symptomatic people are tested, and that tends to over-estimate the death rate. — unenlightened

If you don't like the way that statistics is done, then your free to cherry-pick or make up any numbers that you feel like but in doing so it will be a given that your allowing bias to influence your judgement. If you want to only look at the statistics of the people on the ship then you can do so but I'm pretty sure there wasn't enough people on the ship to get a true sample size (which usually requires at least 2,000) and it is a given that wealthy people on a cruise ship are going to have access to better care than less wealthy people, people stuck in a hot zone, and/or people in developing countries.

If you listen to the experts on this, and even read between the lines with some of the things they are talking about you should realize this is likely going to effect us mush like the Spanish Influenza that happen close to one hundred years ago and kill more people than World War I and world War II combined.

You like reasoning and argument, don't you? Here's some reasoning and argument.

https://slate.com/technology/2020/03/coronavirus-mortality-rate-lower-than-we-think.html?fbclid=IwAR2Di6GSNzwF8WJ4RDVmkLjwJr7x8sY5Bnwq-UJY_Uv3WmUu4EmjHP3XRZU — unenlightened

Before assuming the fatality rate is as low as the flu as that article and Trump may be trying to suggest realize that extrapolating data in such a fashion is know as "cherry picking" and should be look down upon by others if they know that is how you like to obtain data. Now it might be true that in some countries they might be able to keep the morality rate lower than others and people that get the corona virus later on may have a lower morality rate than those who get it earlier, but if you are talking about everyone in the world you need to include ALL cases to get a proper number.

Also it is worth noting the the fatality rate likely doesn't include things such as people that might be indirectly killed by the virus (such as other people sick and injured but unable to get help) and the number of fatalities from people getting reinfected or people who may die if and when the virus mutates.

CNN is very helpfully reporting that symptoms include:
a runny nose,
a cough,
a sore throat.

Of course, those are also the symptoms of a common cold. And since the Coronavirus affects the lower respiratory system, it does not actually cause a runny nose. — Echarmion

That's because the corona virus IS the common cold or at least to the best of my knowledge it is. If you want to know how you can prevent the common cold the best answer is that you really can't other than perhaps live in a plastic bubble for awhile. If the fact that it is more similar to the common cold than the flu doesn't bother you, then you are likely not scared enough yet.

So the CFR in the US is over 5% now. Not even China's or Iran's is that high. That leaves a couple of possibilities:

1. Not enough testing/leg-work to identify cases;
2. Crappy healthcare;
3. Pre-existing conditions/bad lifestyle choices exacerbating likelihood of dying.

A combination of those three.

Or bad luck. For having Trump as president I suppose. — Benkei

Well, it is likely a factor of two things one which is that one of the first areas to get hit was an elderly community where many people are over 60 and/or have underlining health issue that are problematic if they get the virus. There are some countries with hundreds of cases of corona virus and no deaths. The fact that in the US some of the first cases were at a elderly facility doesn't mean much other than we are very late in detecting the virus since people started dying before anyone knew they knew these residents were sick and nobody knew the person who gave it to them had the virus either. Right now it is likely that there are too few cases in the US to worry about the CFR number here, and only when it gets to be around 5,000 to 10,000 (which it should soon enough) will you have a better idea what the fatality rate will be.

I think the doctors here in the US are likely as good or better then the rest of the world, but there have been issues in the US and some other countries with trying to quarantine those that either are sick or may be sick and of course with making the test kits available. If it makes you feel any better watch the following video where a person let go from quarantine explains why he thinks the corona virus may not be all that bad. ;)

Coronavirus Quarantine Survivor on TV
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5PXh4U8CJs

What I want to know is how N is defined.

Is there special use of the word 'is'? Natural numbers are N, is incomplete.

A. 1 through 9, are numbers, why?

B. Why does the number system progress, beginning from the left, proceeding to the right?

C. Is human number just a tool? — Qwex

(A)Numbers are just words and abstract concepts used to label and understand the world around us. Words are created whenever someone decides to label something around them (which hasn't been labeled as such before) and enough people agree to the convention that it sticks either because it is useful or because people just like it.
(B)By convention we think of the number system proceeding from a point of origin going to the right, but that is only when we are counting. When dealing with things such as geometry something to the right of somethings isn't necessarily more positive than it.
(C)I believe one can say that words, languages, numbers/abstract concepts, and mathematics are more or less tools that we use to define the world around us.

Further Edits:
A shadow-argument:

I understand you can count your fingers, 1 - 4, but what says a finger is a 1 and not crossed fingers? The 'whole' of the finger?

In which case it's not a single, there's an organism involved(such as under the skin of the finger), and thus, a finger is not a 1.

I understand 1 is a concept but mathmatically, 1 is a point.

Perhaps, to point at your finger you'll use the number 1 but to define it numerically it's a different number. — Qwex

Because you can only call your finger or crossed fingers '1' and not make it '1' since one is only an abstract concept and your fingers are instances of various abstract concepts. Labels and abstract concepts are created whenever you decide to call something by some name,describe some aspect or attribute of it but these labels and mental projections are not the things in and of themselves. Only the actual physical instances of things are things in and of themselves.

And on that subject numbers are never a physical instance of anything because they can only describe an attribute of a physical thing and all physical things have more than a single attribute to them.

The conspiracy that Trump is a Manchurian candidate, that he colluded with Russia, made it to the highest parts of the government. To the chagrin of many it was proven false. This was literally concocted by the Democrats as their Russian-sourced dirt was used as the impetus for the investigations. There was no such investigation of Obama. — NOS4A2

That is a straw man argument since as far as I known news source (left wing or otherwise) has made such claims. What they have claimed is that Russia has been trying to meld in US politics and in the 2016 election they used such melding to help Trump get elected. Why they prefer Trump over Hillary isn't clear but rumor has it that Putin has a video tape of Trump with some escorts (as well as other things) which could be used as leverage if Trump decided to make things difficult for Putin. Whether there is any truth to this or the idea that Russia believes Trump as president will undermine the US is a bit speculative...all that is really known is that Russia did interfere and while Trump isn't directly guilty of collusion with them, he is far from being innocent in the whole matter.

Other administrations misused funds and none of them went to jail as far as I know. Meanwhile Trump is getting impeached. So I’m not so sure your common sense is working in this regard. — NOS4A2

Are you talking about administrations that did it and didn't get caught like Trump and therefore were more difficult to try to impeach or are you talking about some that was caught doing something along the lines of what Trump did and the Republicans were totally asleep at the switch at doing anything about it. Which is very hard to believe since they like to shit storm over any little thing that happens.

Also the argument that Trump should be able to get away with it because it is possible that some other administration "might" have been able to get away with something almost just as bad is similar to the argument that any murder should be set free since there have been people in the past that have managed to get away with murder.

It’s not because he’s a Democrat, but because his son was being payed vast sums of cash by a corrupt Ukrainian company while his father was the point man in Ukraine. — NOS4A2

And none of this was proven just as Obama it was never proven that some kind of manchurian candidate or pretty much all other ridiculous right wing conspiracies that are concocted to discredit nearly anyone who runs against republicans or is in office.

Also you are completely ignoring the fact that it IS against the law to misuse government money like it is part of your own personal slush fund even if what you think you are doing is the right thing which is why Trump and his lackeys tried so hard not to let anyone find out what they were doing. Anyone with common sense knows that if anyone else than Trump did what he did then they would both lose their job and have to serve some time in jail. Instead all he is getting is a slap on the hand which both him and the republican are bitching and moaning that it is too heavy handed by the democrats.

If the average american government worker so much as gets or gives a nice pen (or a lunch) to a vendor for help for whatever they are liable to being prosecuted to either being bribed or attempted bribery. However if your a politician, lobbyist, or have some other similar position where "campaign contributions" begin ends and bribery begins is a bit of a gray area.

Yeah I don’t get the whole idea that one cannot investigate the corruption of a political rival because it might ruin his political chances. Do you think the possible corruption of Joe Biden should be avoided because it might undermine his campaign? — NOS4A2

Just because someone is a democrat or doesn't support Trump and/or the Republican party, it doesn't automatically make that person a criminal or corrupt in some way. Because of this it isn't a given that Joe Biden, his son, or the rest of us are all going to secret cult meeting in the middle of the night to sacrifice virgins in the name of Satan or whatever it is Trump and his supporters think we are doing.

Also the problem is Trump was trying to use military aid (instead of his own money) to bribe the Ukrainian president to dig up dirt on his political rivals. If that isn't an example of plutocracy/crony capitalism in action then I don't know what is.

How can philosophers resurrect truth from its deathbed? How can philosophers find consensus on the best course forward in changing the public mind? — ernestm

I believe a few years ago there was a claim that philosophy was dead and so I guess now truth is supposed to be dead because the publishers at Time think it has gotten that bad?

I guess when you come to think of it, most of what we call the "truth" is merely what the people in power in any given society decide what the truth is and any facts that don't mesh well with their story is easily either ignored or erased one way or another.

Also since the real "truth" is there isn't any truth to begin with (only axioms that we believe are true but are not really the "truth"), the destruction of truth is usually the process of ignoring a certain set of axioms in favor of another set since the non-existing "truth" can not really be altered.

Clinton committed perjury, a crime. Andrew Jackson violated acts and allegedly the constitution. Either way they were acquitted. How has Trump abused his power? He hasn’t. — NOS4A2

How do you figure that? If using (or trying to use) government money to undermine a political rival isn't an impeachable offence then one can excuse nearly any kind of behavior. I imagine if one happen to be a king or if somehow a ruler and the government were the same thing so actions wouldn't be treason but as far as I know that isn't the type of government we have.....at least not yet.

On face value I surmise that this makes sense. But, the issue is that suicide, even in a deterministic universe is still self-harm. You can't really get around this fact. — Wallows

Is it safe to say in a completely deterministic universe that there is even 'self' in which one can choose to harm? If the the thinking thing or "I" as defined in "I think therefore I am", isn't even real as we define it but instead merely part of the plethora of other things that exists outside which simultaneously die and come to life every day of our lives, then one's own death is pretty much moot in a deterministic universe other than the moral, social, and psychological ramifications we give it. And if someone finds out that that they are merely one of many redundant cogs in a very large machine that it can be difficult to justify such beliefs or illusions depending on how they view it.

The odd thing is suicide and certain similar behavior seems pretty predictable yet nobody really cares most of the time when someone offs themselves since there are often obvious underlining reasons for them doing so and/or that they a really didn't play that much of a role in society any longer (which I believe has been a common reason for people to commit suicide through out history),

How Bioshock discovered the meaning of Ayn Rand
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U517H3f85_o

Bioshock - Rand Gone Wrong
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=avkWhFp09JA

Ayn Rand - How Is This Still A Thing?: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8m8cQI4DgM

Thom Hartmann: Atlas Shrugged - bizarre philosophy at work
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHnnnmuYAdw

Five Stupid Things About Ayn Rand
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t0CyunRUJmc

The first issue is that Ayn Rand/Objectivism isn't a form of philosophy as it is a form of religion/ideology. The dead giveaway of this is that it puts so much effort wrapping itself in its own moral codes (much like a nationalist likes wrapping themselves in flags) but fails horribly when it tries to explain why its moral codes are so much better than any other moral codes. Most people that have argued awhile regarding either religious and/or moral beliefs get the same unpleasant experience when dealing with Objectivism.

Also if you ever hear of the game Bioshock and it's story of a city called Rapture, then you should be aware of some of the fallacies that Ayn Rand has since Rapture itself is based on the idea of what would happen if any place in the world if the based their society and morality on Ayn Rand/Objectivism. I'm sure you can find plenty of YouTube videoes on this subject if you try to look for them.

I am certain many of you here have thought about why you exist at one point in your life. Is it to pig out and resemble an animal than a human being? Is it to pretend this life is paradise and try to make it as enjoyable as possible? Is it to blur and dull your consciousness through drugs? We all have our personal beliefs. Contribute and tell us why you exist. — jorgealarcon

Is it really necessary for any of us to have a purpose? I remember when I was younger I use to think I (as well as other people) really needed to have a purpose but as I got older the purposes I would invent for myself got less and less important until they started getting so moot that I really didn't care anymore.

Maybe I forgot something but as far as I can remember I mostly played the game of defining a purpose was in order for me to get through a day of school or work in order to help me emotionally deal with things. Since I don't care about much anymore it has gotten to be less important to me then it use to be.

I've been struggling with suicidal thoughts since I was 15. Now, I am nearly 29 and the thoughts are reaching a crescendo. A lot of stuff has been going on; but, the persuasiveness of the thoughts are becoming too real. The rationale is that I don't feel like I'm in control of my life, and have to deal with too much crap going on around me. — Wallows

Is the problem due to the feeling that you don't have control, or is it because you think that you have even less control of your life then what you think other people have over their life? If it is the first then it sounds like you have some kind of phobia with dealing with certain issues in life and the angst in confronting (or even thinking about confronting) these issues are overwhelming you much like any object that one has a phobia of.

If it is the second issue then it is unlikely you are aware of how very little control most people have in their lives. Also to the best of my knowledge, everyone feels like they are given too much crap to deal with and they more or less deal with it by dealing with only as much of it as they can at a given time and by leaving the rest of it for another day.

The main motivating force is that I know I will die at some point of my life and having control as to when and how is quite appealing. The only reason why I do go on living instead of committing suicide is that I have a caring mother. It would be too much for her to handle for me to do such an act. Not that she wouldn't be able to cope with it; but, I don't want her to suffer because of my selfish act. — Wallows

One of the things they don't tell the general public at large about dying is there is a good probability that the last few minutes person is conscience before they die is likely the WORST few minutes of our lives that many of us will go through. The reason for this is that when oxygen gets cut off from the brain it can usually survive for 5 to 10 minutes without issue but it lasts longer than 10 minutes then the risks become greater and greater the longer the brain doesn't get oxygen to it that the person will have brain damage or can not be revived at all. The odd thing is that in an oxygen deprived environment the brain can survive up to an hour without oxygen (although it is almost a given that a person will lose conscience before their brain actually dies) since it the process of reintroducing oxygen to the brain that is traumatizing/potentially damaging to the tissues in our brains.

The point of this information is to explain that when people are dying they often don't go after their heart stops beating for a few minutes and people stop trying to revive them, they go several minutes later when their brain becomes too oxygen deprived to survive any longer. I could be wrong, but it is plausible that if someone is still conscience at this point (which is possible due to all the chemicals your body produces and all the other things it does when is going through a near death situation) that they would experience something like a combination of both asphyxiation/drowning and paralysis at the same time. I don't know if you have ever experienced a situation where you can't move or do anything and can't breath, but I believe it is likely as bad or worse then the anxiety of worrying when one might die.

Now, I have tried countless medications, therapy, and such; but, the thoughts are zapping away what little enthusiasm for life that I have. I am in a precarious state of wanting to go on and not wanting to go on.

It's been nearly fifteen years of trying to banish the bad thoughts away, yet, here I still am in this miserable state of existence. Any thoughts or help appreciated.

Please don't just focus on "me" here, as I do notice quite a few of these motifs around here too by other members. — Wallows

To be honest I had something to say when I first started writing this reply, but I think I forgot what it was by the time I got here. As a nihilist I really don't believe there is an ethical reason for a person to choose to live instead of offing themselves (since about 98-99.9% of us will never do anything important in our lifetime, and even the small number that do something it in and of itself may not really have been necessary), so I'm not the kind of person to blow sunshine up their backside in order for them to feel better about the way things are. Maybe reading dark humor demotivation posters or some Buddhism might help but then again they may not. I think many people just try one thing after another until they find something that works or at least until they get bored of doing that and merely digress into Hedonists and give up on any real purpose for anything. I'm not really sure how it is supposed to work. :P

There is no evil in social Darwinism. Is that a problem for you? — frank

As someone who is slanted toward Machiavellianism I'm not bothered if someone doesn't want to paint things into a "good"/"evil" perspective. However if you ARE arguing for social Darwinism I kind of doubt that you don't put things in some kind of good/evil perspective since you need to follow some kind of metrics that enable to rationalize how and why one ideology is better than another.

By "strong," I mean creative individuals with ambition and determination. By rewarding such individuals with wealth and power, society in general becomes leaner and fitter.

Opposition to this view is essentially an anti-life ethic which promotes mercy and pity over greatness.

Agree? — frank

Saying that "Laissez faire" is "good" and socialism (or any ideology that doesn't agree with Laissez faire beliefs) is "evil" is a bit of a Binary/False dilemma fallacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

Also it sounds too much what Ayn Rand use to preach. If you know anything about Ayn Rand then it is likely you know about the numerous arguments against her ideals, if you don't than maybe it would help if you read up on the subject. IMHO Ayn Rand (as well as her followers) beliefs really amount to mere dogma and shouldn't even be considered a "philosophical idea" since it lacks enough critical thinking to be put into such a category.

If you really believe in Laissez faire arguments, then it best to read up on Machiavellianism, since Objectivism is merely a sugar coated version of it. People that have wealth and think it is their 'right' to enjoy their freedom and money without having to fight and claw for it are likely just special snowflakes that think that the rules that apply to everyone else shouldn't apply to them. The problem is if everyone else thinks they too are "special snowflakes" then a society that can support Laissez faire kind of economy will break down from all the social infighting (and sometimes real fighting), that there wouldn't be any real gain from such ideology.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

"Nearly a year after the plan was first mooted, most visa applicants, including tourists, headed to the United States will have to provide usernames of social media accounts that they have used during the past five years."

https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/nri/visa-and-immigration/revised-us-visa-forms-to-ask-most-applicants-to-furnish-5-year-social-media-history/articleshow/69616296.cms

How much can the USA continue to criticize other nations for not protecting privacy and free speech? How much can we be assured of privacy and free speech ourselves? — ernestm

One of the first things you got to realize about the powers that be in the United States is that they have a "do as I say,not as I do" policy. For example, you can easily sue a company or person who may have harmed you (of course provided they have the money and can be find liable for the harm they have done to you), however if is the US government that has done this it is a whole other can of worms to try and do anything about it. Also if a corporation (or wealthy individual) has enough lawyers, accountants, spin doctors, etc. they can more or less make things just as difficult as if they where the US government itself.

On the other hand if one of the few individuals wealth enough to travel to other countries as you feel like it, it might be partly expected that any (or perhaps even every) country you enter will require them to have to jump through certain amount of hoops before you can even put one foot on their soil. Whether any country is justified in what they expect someone to have to do to in order to enter their country is debatable, but after 9/11 it is almost common sense that people coming from one country and going into another such as the United States will often have to go through a screening process that is not different from a background check for a job, entering the military, and/or for handling confidential and/or classified information. This might seem a bit excessive however the US doesn't expect the average Joe Blow (ie one of the working poor, someone from the lower middle class, or from a lower social status) from either the third world or the developed world to come here on a 3 or 4 day vacation; unless perhaps they are willing to spend a ton of time and resources on such a trip.

Another way to look at it is that I use to ride to work with someone who immigrated from Jamaica and in comparing what the US was like to where he use to live he would say that in the US "nothing is a game", and someone (such as himself) didn't do what was expected of him from the government agencies that where allowing him to stay here, they could (and were more than willing to) turn his life upside down if they felt that he was being laid back/not doing enough and such behavior made things more difficult for them to do their job.

"Cogito ergo sum" is really little more than a proof by assertion since neither the subject "I", the action of "thinking", or the state of "existing" can be defined. If you understand the nature of most "truths" and question them, you will understand they are merely what people want to be true and therefore are assumed to be 'true'when they meet are very limited criteria. However as human beings real "truths" are beyond our resources to find and/or understand so it is a given that we have to make due with these limited truths until we can understand more about the world around us, or do not need "truths" in order to interpret the world around us.

"But, what if you were to combine hedonism with spirituality? It would be my worldview which I would call Spiritual Hedonism or New Age Hedonism. According to this worldview/religion, positive emotions are the holy or divine inner light. Without it, then we can only be empty vessels or beings of darkness and negativity through our negative emotions.

"So, the next time you feel a positive emotion such as a feeling of excitement to go to the carnival, sexual arousal, or a feeling of profound beauty and joy, do not ignore and dismiss that emotion as being nothing more than just a feeling. It is something far more than that. It is everything to your human existence. It is the perception of beauty and joy in your life which makes your whole entire reality something beautiful and joyful."

"I would describe positive emotions as being divine, holy, magnificent, and transcending states. They transcend you into the heavens, so to speak, and they make you and your life something awesome. But I would describe the negative emotions as being descending states. They lower you down into the realm of darkness and negativity since they can make you feel disgust about yourself and they can make you feel morbid and miserable."
-TranscendedRealms

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While others may disagree with you, in my humble opinion I believe you are closer to the truth then many would like to believe. Religion (as well the concept of morality) is itself a vice so linking hedonism with spirituality shouldn't be all that shocking. It only takes some common sense to realize that most people find solace in either a bar and alcohol or churches and the bible (although some use both) and they are both there for more or less the same reasons. Although I don't remember the exact passage or even the book it was in, I'm pretty sure Nietzsche once or twice linked the similarities between extremely religious people and alcoholics. Almost everyone has a vice of one sort or another, however this is more or less just an aspect of the human condition and not any particular fault of an individual so in that regard certain aspects of hedonism/vices, religion and/or systems of belief are one and the same.

"Isn't the goal to listen to silence? Why is there no shushing?"
-matt
(While your post may be meant for Banno, I thought I might as well put my two cents in.)

While quietness may lead to more peace of mind and better overall health for most of us, it doesn't sell the way noise can and in a capitalistic society actions and environments that make more money than others (whether it be a loud commercial, a busy mall, packed casino, etc, etc) usually trump others even if there are other pros and cons that should be considered then just the making money part.

I'm pretty sure some of our current health issues whether it be ADHD, chronic pain/chronic fatigue, depression, anxiety, etc can be attributed to some degree due to the amount of noise we are exposed to on a daily basis and the negative impact it has on us. However when corporations or other powers that be look at the spreadsheets they have that are supposed to tell them which of the many choices they should make, it is highly unlikely that in many of the reports they consider whether "low level" noise is taken into hardly any consideration.

"Ok here is the solution I "found", without any sequent introductions... There seem to be many assumptions and I hope I have discharged them all.

1) (Ax)[(Ey)Tyx-->(Az)~Txz] premise
2) (Ax)[(Ey)Tyx-->Txx premise
3)(Ey)Tya-->Taa 2AE (viz. universal elimination of 2)
4) Tba-->Taa assumption
5)Tba assumption
6) Taa 4,5 -->E
7)(Ey)Tya-->(Az)~Taz 1AE
8) Tba-->(Az)~Taz assumption
9)Tba assumption (I assume it a second time since I am not sure if I should use line 5, already discharged, again)
10) (Az)~Taz 8,9 -->E
11) ~Taa 10AE
12) ^^^contradiction^^^ of 6 and 11
13) ~Tba 5,12~I
14) (Ay)~Tby 13AI
15) (Ax)(Ay)~Tby 14AI
16) (Ax)(Ay)~Tby 3,4,15 EE (viz. existential elimination)
17) (Ax)(Ay)~Tby 7,8,16 EE

By the way, these exercises do not help me pass the exam. I have to resolve them in order to make sense of everything and be able to interpret all the problems I will be given in the exam. Hence, I'd appreciate any corrections in my argument. Thank you again!"
- Eros1982

Sometimes I'm so glad that I have never taken a logic in philosophy course or something like it since it would likely make me hate the entire subject and make me never what to do it again for the rest of my life. When I was studying electronics I LOVED doing things like digital circuits, but it didn't have half the madness that logic entails.

While it is unlikely you will heed this advice, IMHO I believe it is best that you reading and writing about philosophy other than what you are doing to earn your degree on your own terms and doing what interests you. For if you don't there is a good chance that it will all will become just 'work' to you and it will become just as boring and tedious as whatever you did before you did for the government before you enrolled in the program you are now in.

"Hence the Quaker podcast. That's how to talk about God."
-Banno
I don't disagree that it may be the proper path for some and/or that it might be useful for some in a variety of ways. I guess my main beef against many forms of Abrahamic religions is that they are hierarchical in structure, have a 'believe this way or else' mentality, and/or are hostile in one way or another to ideas and beliefs that are different than their own.

Those who are something like Unitarian Universalist and/or are solitary practitioners who don't push their beliefs on others are not really the kind of people I'm arguing against. I may not be sure of it, but I'm guessing that these Quakers you are talking about are not the evangelical sort I'm unhappy about.

"Perhaps we can speculate about God based on our intuition and perceptions of life and reality. Some of us have had closer encounters with life (and death) than others and can therefore share their spirituality. Where the more we come to accumulate knowledge, the better we can speculate about God."
-matt
As long as one understands that such talk is just a discussion/speculation then it isn't too bad, but unfortunately most talk involving 'God' isn't such. Also it isn't knowledge itself that would allow one to understand what 'God' is or might be but more like wisdom, which is more about the disciplined methods for processing information then the just information one knows. However since your post does show a mindset that seems ready for such issue (or at least from what little I can know about a person from just a post alone) I will share with you a concept called "duhkha" which roughly means pain/suffering but it is a little more than that. Its true meaning is more about how the imperfection of this world causes the human condition and other unease we all suffer from and is one of the major reasons why many if not most Buddhists do not believe in 'God'.

Dukkha:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukkha

Knowing what 'God' is and if he/she/it exists is a non-trivial problem that is just as difficult as knowing what true objective 'good' is and because we are no where near solving either of these problems, it is pretty much a given that anyone think that either they have or we have solved it doesn't understand the problem well enough to talk properly about it, is crazier then a person who thinks they are a fried egg, or perhaps a little bit of both.

It's already too much.
-Banno

I more or less agree, or at least I do anyways. :smile:

Your post reminds me of the following quote that I heard a very long time ago:

“Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot make a worm, and yet he will be making gods by dozens.”
-Michel de Montaigne

Pretty much anyone can make up what they think what 'God' might be like but that doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. And the word 'transcendent' is just a fancy word meant to convey the idea of an existence different then our own, but since we don't really understand what 'existence' is it is a given that anyone talking about something being 'transcendent' is more likely than not just pulling it out of their backside then from any kind of credible source.

And everything you wrote about how theistic religions being about to support their beliefs through their own metrics can be said of any other religion/ideology/system of beliefs whether it is believe by the population at large or someone trying to chew through the straps on their straight jacket. However to use such 'evidence' as some kind of proof to anyone other then those that believe it already is an appeal to antiquity fallacy since it assumes the person hearing such arguments doesn't need to validate such beliefs because they are what defendant was brought up (or perhaps chose to at some point) to believe and they should also believe it as well without question.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition

So God is beyond words? Makes for a short thread. — Banno

It is kind of ironic that many theist use the argument that "God" is beyond words/human comprehension in defense of their position when it does more to damage it then support it. If it is true that "God" is beyond words, then it also means that it is a given that even if theists spends their entire life devoted to knowing and understanding God/God's will they don't know anything more about God then the rest of us, and reading the bible won't tell you anything more about God then reading comic books.

While it isn't well documented in discussions with people from societies that have (or had) beliefs in polytheistic gods, it was discovered that they too had an understanding or dealings with monotheistic beliefs instead of it being completely alien to them as it is often believed. However for them monotheistic beliefs can only believed by bat sh*t crazy people since it contains so many obvious problems that only a lunatic (or perhaps someone who comes from a society run by lunatics) could ever allow themselves to believe in such things. Because of this issue, many polytheistic/pagan based societies tend to try to ... purge .. themselves of monotheistic beliefs (whether such beliefs come from an individual or group) out of fear of what might happen if they allow such madness to spread. And ironically enough they often felt that they were doing those that they got rid of (either through death or exile) a 'favor' because they themselves felt that they would rather be put out of their misery then have to live with such madness as well as endangering their community and the one's they love.

No. You are misreading what I said..

In the social context theft can only occur when someone else's property is stolen but in theory if something isn't someone else's then it isn't technically theft. However the problem with this is that it is only in the legal context of things as doesn't account for the issue of "thing in and of itself" having rights (property or otherwise) which need to be respected. For example, hundreds of years ago (and maybe even in some places now) when human rights where no so universal one person could be bought and sold to someone else much like any other property.

Since certain societies of the time respected the individual who owned the paperwork detailing such ownership over the claims of such individual without any paperwork detailing themselves as a citizen or free person in anyway; it was a given that person didn't even own their own body and/or life and was subjugated to the will of the one that did. However today in most societies we would recognize such behavior as theft (as well as several other crimes) since it is a given that everyone has rights to their own body and mind even if they don't have the documentation to prove they are a free citizen or whatever. If you extend some of the rights of human beings to other "things in and of themselves" you get some of the general idea behind why all property is theft of one form or another.

Ok, I'll have to read up on that in order to understand it better but for the sake of speed assume it isn't that different for thing like Machiavellianism and/or Ayn Rand's Objectivism, but will be careful not to assume they are the same and/or creating straw-men with such assumptions.

Just so you know where I'm coming from it might be helpful to know that a lot of my arguments (for economies at least) are based of the works of Martin Heidegger or at least the morality that I interpret from his works. If you have a chance I would recommend either getting a pdf copy or book from Amazon called "Heidegger For Beginners", since it is a decent way to get a crash course into some of his beliefs and thoughts.

As a person who is Nihilist/Machiavellian I can accept that "morality" is merely a social construct and may not apply when push comes to shove, BUT one needs a certain...finesse when dealing with complex situations such as one of Machiavellian's princes might be required to handle. Robber barons and/or capitalists who raid and plunder without regard to those who are their lesser might think risk inciting riots and rebellions even if the end does justify the means in some way.

Also what I wonder with Nietzsche's master-slave morality is what happens if we end up with everyone wanting to be the 'chief' and nobody wanting to be an just an indian since it would require them to serve under a tyrant? For what little I know of such situations where an organization employs too many competitive individuals is that it risks tearing itself apart with endless infighting. And although it is possible for a place to exist where "everyone is their own master" (because they are artistically, mathematically, etc. gifted) in most places this doesn't happen ever, nor is there any assurances that such places could effectively govern themselves. In the video game Bioshock, an eccentric billionaire named Andrew Ryan creates an underwater city named Atlas in which he hopes to escape much of the "slave" mentality of the world around him and in the process of him mishandling much of the social upheaval that occurs when everyone is down there for while the entire place dissolves into anarchy with nearly everyone trying to kill each other. Although the story of Atlas may not be exactly what would happen in a society populated and ruled by those who had a "master" mentality, I believe it is effective commentary of many of the potential problems of what such a society would have to deal with.

When you say "master morality" are you talking about master–slave morality from Nietzsche or in reference o something else?

Ok, I'll try to do that although I kind of don't like posting something without the context of what it is arguing with nearby.

"We have examples in Russia of how aversion to the concept of private property undermines industry. Since the workers think they own the factory, we can't just fire all of them and bring in cheaper immigrants. Atrocities like this beset the Russian capitalist."
-frank

While it might be a crime in some places for workers and protesters to occupy a factory or some other area without proper permission, to use the word "atrocity" to describe such actions is an exaggeration since it is reserved for things like mass murder, genocide, etc. or at the very least violence and physical injury to one or more people.

Also since the Putin and/or the Russia state can seize entire oil companies and/or other corporate entities merely because they are being accused of working with Western organizations to undermine the current administration, I somehow doubt that the threat of workers merely interfering with operations worry Russian capitalists that much if ALL of one's assets can be seized as well they themselves being arrested on whatever charges and thrown into the gulag at the drop of a hat if the rub the powers that be in the existing regime if you happen to rub them the wrong way.

Mere angry workers may be threatening to some, but they can't do that much as groups that have the power or threat of those who have tanks, armies, ships, fighter jets, etc. behind them.

"Then the commons stole it, if we accept the premise that "property is theft." ? "
-Arkady
The point of unenlightened's I think you missed is that commons can not steal whatever "it" is because the commons is neither owned by ANYONE nor a entity in and of itself like a corporation is, so it isn't really owned by anyone/anything including itself.

Think of a wild animal somewhere out in the jungle somewhere just living it's life and doing it's thing. In theory it owns itself in some way but because it is just part of nature and has no idea of property such ideas and rules are not really applicable to it in it's natural state. However if someone comes along using a tranquilizer dart to knock it out, burns a bar code into it's backside, and then throw it into a cage, it is no longer in it's natural setting and it is now the "property" of whomever did it to them and trying to sell the animal to someone else or keep it for themselves for whatever reasons.

"Well that is a good point. It's basic supply and demand. As population increases and resources decrease we will have scarcity, and with the rich having control over the resources the people at the bottom end will have decreasing living standards. Also, there are finite resources and people don't seem to realise that you can't eat money."
- René Descartes

I more or less agree. However this isn't a new issue as it has many of it's root back to the being of the industrial age when the robber barons of those time would ruthlessly seek to obtain any asset that would enable them to make money and would only leave enough scraps for other people to survive.

If you can either take American History II at a local college or read up on the time period from about the American Civil War to modern time. In it there should be some discussion about how and why workers started forming into unions in order to have some leverage against robber barons, corporations, etc. . I also recommend watching the following video:

Poor Us: an animated history - Why Poverty?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxbmjDngois