You think that's all the democracies that exist in the world, the US and then all that's been "rescued"? No others? — Christoffer

Which democracies did you have in mind?

Does not equal the system perfect or better than other democracies with far less corruption and problems. — Christoffer

Do you mean other democracies that were rescued by America at some point in their past?

You. I answered the question first, and then criticised it. Do you think that repeating it makes it more cogent? — unenlightened

I'm not clear on what you mean. You want to sanction and discourage politicians from lying. We already have libel and slander laws. Apparently, you want to go further. You want government to sanction and discourage politicians from lying? I see enormous problems with that.

But this is not some radical reform I am proposing; there have been prohibitions on fraud, libel, etc since a long while in many communities, because communication is founded on truth and trust. — unenlightened

I have no problem with fraud and libel laws, but you said

need to be sanctioned and firmly discouraged from doing so. — unenlightened

Who's going to do the sanctioning and discouraging, if not government?

On the contrary, media that lie, advertisers that lie, estate agents, politicians, scientists, doctors, that knowing ly lie and deceive, need to be sanctioned and firmly discouraged from doing so. — unenlightened

Who's going to be the arbiter of truth? Government?

It is very telling of how bad the US democracy is built if Trump is sentenced and he still wins an election. The US democratic system is just a patch work of stupidity compared to other developed nations with functioning democracies. Like rolling out the red carpet for corruption and no one seems to care enough to do anything radical to change it. The delusional idea that the US system is the best things can get and that any problem is due to something else or someone else. The US needs an overhaul of it's entire system. Throw the constitution in the trash and draw up a new one with up to date ideals. If Trump gets sentenced to jail and win the election and people won't do anything other than write "how could this happen?" on their social media accounts, then that's a clear sign that the US will end up in the gutter in the long run. — Christoffer

The American system certainly has staying power- 200+years and counting. The system can be amended to add safeguards against someone like Trump again.

You can't win against quislings. It's just a game of whack-a-mole; every time you knock down some bullshit claim, they pop-up with another one. Then, when you've handed them their ass on that one, they circle back to the original bullshit, and claim they were right all along.

I take the extreme view that under no circumstances is violent resistance permissible, and it is better to continue under oppression than violently resist. — FreeEmotion

So you think the inmates at Sobibor death camp were wrong to rise up?

So you're saying it isn't already? 10,000 in the meantime right? — Benkei

You can't make an omelette...seriously though, Germany and Japan suffered civilian casualties many orders of magnitude higher than what Israel has dished out (and will eventually dish out) and became better countries for it. Change is messy. War is hell. Innocent people get killed. What did the Palestinians and Hamas think would happen when they decided to go down this road together? Did they think it would end well? Did they think they could pull off something like 10/7 and not get the shit kicked out of them?

Yeah, that's the issue. Who is the deciding 'we'? The colonial West? It seems to me that the nearest entity with a valid claim to being 'we' is the United Nations. — bert1

The UN would be the closest thing. I was making a point, though, that the moral thing to do (on some views of morality) is to continue to let Israel control the land.

I think his point was at which indignation does one choose focus on? — schopenhauer1

Partly. From a consequentialist/utilitarian point of view, we have to look at it like:

Two groups have valid claims on a piece of land. What will each group do if they get control of the land? Group A will create a society where Muslim men have all the power. Group B will create a much more inclusive democratic society. People will be better off if Group B owns the land. Therefore, group B should get the land. If Group A gets their act together, we can reevaluate their claims to the land.

And since we usually don't reward thieves — Benkei

But we should reward land to people who would treat women and LGBTQ people like dirt? Until the Arab countries stop dehumanizing women and minorities, they should be treated as inferior to other, more equitable, nations.

What do you do? You have a lethal Jihadist entity next to you that showed you a taste of what it would love to do to every one of the people in your country until it gets what it wants. Do you leave that entity intact? Do you sue for peace and give in?

I know your answer is going to be, hold steady and bring the case to the UN for review, right? Get world sympathy from former colonial powers in NATO so that you have enough support from the sideliners to get the bad guys? — schopenhauer1

Any American or Israeli leader that has a 9/11 or 10/7 happen to them and does not plan for immediate retaliation would be removed from office. Is there any country that would tolerate a pacifistic leader after such an attack?

I'll still vote for Biden over Trump, but let's not pretend things have gone well in the last four years. There's a reason Biden is losing to Trump in numerous polls.

The world has gone to shit under his watch. Afghanistan was a humiliating debacle. The border situation is a festering wound. The Democrat NY mayor says New York might be "destroyed" by an influx of migrants. Americans are still reeling from historically high inflation. There's a stench of corruption around his whole family. Stores are pulling out of Democratic run cities because of rampant shoplifting. And he's too old.

I read an article that Biden could be replaced at the convention. That the delegates are not legally bound to vote for him, regardless of what happens in the primaries. I can't remember the name of the article. Also, suppose it's July and Biden is still trailing Trump in polls. The pressure on Biden to drop out would be enormous. But then, wouldn't Harris then get the nomination?

Politicians support Israel because the public supports Israel, older people in particular. Also, there are good practical and moral reasons to support the only decent country in that whole area.
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/13/1205627092/american-support-israel-biden-middle-east-hamas-poll

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/bernie-sanders-rejects-progressives-call-for-cease-fire-in-israel-conflict-hamas-has-got-to-go/

Right on, Bernie.

I don't think Biden will be the nominee. If he gets forced out at the convention in favor of someone like Newsom, nobody will shed a tear. Nobody likes Biden. Harris will still be the VP, though.

:up:

Do you mean the west should be antagonistic toward countries that don't value rights and liberal principles? — frank

It depends on what the goals of those countries are. Are they expansionist? Are they threatening other Western countries and/or countries that are friendly to Western interests? Do they fund anti-West terrorists? The West should definitely be antagonistic towards China, Russia, Iran, and N. Korea.

That question is too vague. — 180 Proof

No, it's not. The Allies were morally superior to the Axis. Full stop. That's one of the clearest real-life moral cases we have. The Nazi's were so bad that invoking comparisons to them shuts down debate (Godwin's Law). Your anti-Israel bias has blinded you to some obvious moral truths. I get why. You don't want to follow this chain of logic: if the Allies can kill innocent people and still claim the moral high ground, then Israel can kill innocent people and still claim the moral high ground.

I'm claiming that Allied war crimes were morally equivalent to Axis war crimes insofar as they were both war crimes. Your special pleading is what's absurd, sir. Inform yourself. — 180 Proof

OK, so there is a moral equivalence between Axis and Allies viz-a-viz war crimes, but the war crime moral equivalence does not create an overall moral equivalence between the two? Even though the Allies committed war crimes, they were morally superior to the Axis. Is that correct?

Yes. What makes actions "war crimes" is that, to begin with they are not self-defensive, etc. — 180 Proof

But there wasn't a moral equivalence between the Axis and Allies. Are you claiming the Allies were just as bad, morally, as the Axis? That's absurd.

The Allies certainly commited their share of war crimes (e.g. Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki ...) — 180 Proof

Let's go with war crimes then. Does the committing of Allied war crimes entail a moral equivalence between the Allies and Axis?

Read again instead of misquoting the definition and asking dumb questions as a result. — Benkei

So the Allies didn't commit genocide against Axis populations.

killing members of the group
causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group
deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part — Benkei

Did the Allies commit genocide against populations of Axis powers?

I'll just repeat: everyone engages in othering. — unenlightened

Ain't that the truth.

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/covid-lockdowns-big-fail-joe-nocera-bethany-mclean-book-excerpt.html

A good article about the lockdowns. As much as I hate Trump, he was right about reopening schools. The classes I've taught since schools reopened have been the lowest I've ever seen. That's anecdotal, but the research also bear that out. I teach in a low income area, and that demographic was especially hard-hit by the school closures.

That isn't allowed. Either you have to side with the Zionists or the Islamists. There has to be the good guys and the bad guys. As you couldn't condemn both. — ssu

What would the world be like if either group was in charge? One side would create a democracy that respects women and LGBTQ rights, and the other would create an Islamic shithole patrolled by "morality police".

It's not hard to figure out which side are the good guys here.

I want to see real evidence that [panpsychism's] the case before I change course — flannel jesus

What would that evidence look like? How do we go about verifying something like panpsychism? It's not possible to "get outside" our own minds. We can infer the existence of other consciousnesses, but we can never prove they exist. I think this is at the heart of the mind-body problem. Scientific approaches won't do the job.

Israel is creating Hamas, not destroying it — bert1

That's a risk any country takes when going to war, but what would you recommend Israel do? Suppose you were president of Israel. What would your response have been to the attacks? Suppose you were the American president after 9/11. Would you have gone after Al Queda? Also, suppose Israel adopted a pacifist strategy and gave in to Hamas's demands. Would Hamas and all the other Muslim terrorist organizations stop trying to kill Jews? I doubt it.

Interesting conversation. I've been looking for just such a discussion. Care if I join? More questions than anything, really... for now. — creativesoul

Of course!

https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/hamas-official-says-group-will-repeat-oct-7-attack-twice-and-three-times-to-destroy-israel/

If that is accurate, then Israel would be crazy to agree to a cease-fire.

Yes, that's exactly what I would say. If our information processing capabilities increased because of evolution, and consciousness is a consequence of that, that's exactly what I would say. — flannel jesus

Even if there's no survival benefit to consciousness and natural selection doesn't apply? Maybe so. What about if panpsychism is true? An electron's consciousness would not be a product of evolution, so why would a brain's consciousness be a product of evolution?

If it came later, then either its a consequence of evolved features, or it just appeared by magic. — flannel jesus

Isn't there another option besides "magic"? Is it possible consciousness appeared when a certain amount of information processing in brains was present? In that case, if consciousness just happens when a certain amount of information is processed, would you really say it's a "product of evolution"? Also, if all matter is conscious (panpsychism), it also wouldn't make sense to say consciousness is a product of evolution.

the question seems largely irrelevant to me. — flannel jesus

If a scientist has no idea when X first appeared in creatures, I'm going to be leery if he then claims that X is certainly a product of evolution. Do you see my point? Not knowing when X appeared implies a lack of understanding about X, which tarnishes any other claims about X.

Do you think consciousness is a physical thing?

who is "we"? I have no idea when sight evolved, but I have very little doubt that sight did evolve. — flannel jesus

I was using "we" to loosely mean "people".

From what I gleaned from a Google search, eyes first appeared 500-600 million years ago. Now, you claim that consciousness evolved. But there is no agreement among scientists when consciousness first appeared. So, if scientists don't know when consciousness first appeared, how can they/you be sure it is a product of evolution?

Usually (or always?), when we say a feature evolved, we have some idea of when it first appeared on the scene. If consciousness is a product of evolution, when did consciousness first appear?