I have two sisters... I think you're just imagining what kind of monster would do that. I of course am not saying force, or rape or anything. You'd basically saying that every relationship that is at all based in incentives of status or wealth, or just non-monogamous ones are evil or something... Just for love and life, or straight to hell?

I also mentioned like hollywood star level hot, man.

I excluded teacher and student positions.

Hollywood is a correlate not a cause in my view. The cause is deeper. With or without Hollywood, power will have its way. — Baden

I was talking about this, and I clarified some with my subsequent post. I simply don't believe people when they say that they're immune to such things unless they've already been able to do it, and then didn't.

I know that I definitely never use my riches and influence to get laid. Never.

A lot of things people freak out about reduces to them never having been in a position to do it, rather than just not doing it out of their virtue.

If I was like in an important producer position, and totally could just give roles to anyone, without breaking any laws, and like some of the hottest women in the world were rubbing elbows, and other things, then it would be difficult to resist that. I don't imagine a caricature of some snarling goblin being all...



I'm not made of stone. Clearly forcing someone, or being cruel or sadistic is always wrong, but suggesting that people can't use their riches and influence to get laid at all is silly.

I stopped really at the "firstly", as I didn't feel like going to equality dynamics, and incentives in general, both of which are more complex.

There are many factors to consider. Firstly, it is inappropriate for subordinates and superiors not because of coercive incentives, but because positions in government or military or good grades at university are supposed to be out of qualification, not nepotism, because they're good buddies, or because they made some exchange for it. This isn't as obvious in business in general, or Hollywood. As there generally isn't anything wrong with giving positions based on relationships, or sexual exchanges, and everyone knows it. It isn't a big secret, it's a cliche, the opposite of a secret.

It isn't as if buddy drugged or raped them, they willingly prostituted themselves

I felt like:

You called me that once, I had to look it up.

I do think that Thoro is right though, and it totally is anti-intellectual to boot someone for their views, even if they are a Nazi. As long as they aren't being super constantly abusive, flooding the place with spam or something, I think that there should be free thought. I don't rule the place though, just around, but that is my view.

Don't be ashamed of your undying love for me. Sing it from the rooftops.

I point it out when people start with that kind of stuff because it is kind of a big shrug. Not because I feel attacked, but because it isn't addressing the points or topic, so it is something of a conversation stopper. I can either just start playing the same sort of game, or bow-out. I do both things, depending on how I feel.

Glad to be of service. :D

I qualified with "apparently", I read your objections, but also Thoro's response to it.

Are you coming on to me?

Pfft, I don't race to the bottom, trying to be the biggest victim, I'm a lion.

Oh, I'm not talking about me, I'm talking about how I think someone that doesn't always win feels.

We should all just hug it out. We shouldn't be too lip biting, about views, evaluations, or even witticisms that personally amuse us. The thing is not a single comment by a single person, but the sense in which the, apparently entire staff gets together in a big high-fiving mocking spectacle at someone else's expense. Not so much any individual comment, one then feels outnumbered, and also being that they are the ones with all of the substantial powas, things feel totally imbalanced.

Not much anyone can do about you guys all agreeing, and expressing it, ideally there would be more diversity is the only answer, but lets not just pretend it isn't so by not expressing it as much, and keeping thoughts and feelings to ourselves.

I should also point out that at no time did I say that compassion is a bad thing, or anything like that, I was saying that it doesn't make a good ruling principle, there was no attacks on compassion as a virtue, or good thing, just as not all that is needed for an ethical philosophy, as there is no way to solve conflicts, and it is inherently biasing.

I don't believe that one can feel compassion, just as I don't believe that one can feel hunger, and then have no compulsory action or reaction whatsoever as a response, no. Emotions move us, that's what they do. They are not just abstract things un-attached to our actions. Compassion, unless for imaginary suffering, that you're conceiving of in virtual space happens when we encounter the real thing, in individuals, and not "humanity in general".

I don't know what to say to that compassion isn't an interaction... so you can be compassionate completely regardless of how you interact with people?

I guess we disagree then, and since it seems to just be that you're right, and I'm flawed and devious, there isn't a whole lot I can say to that.

When do you ever actually interact with "humanity in general"? How can what I said not be true?

Why you callin' me names, man? I gave sources, I didn't pull this out of my ass, this is what I've read, put your pyschologizing away, and give real reasons why it is otherwise, explain why I have sources, and you have intuitions...

There being no treasure where the map marks makes it clearly discoverable.

All forms. This is the question, are forms entirely reflexive, telling you only about the physical qualities of the interpreter, the only objective information being present in the medium of formation, or do they themselves carry qualitative information that is not only reflexive? Normally there is a distinction drawn between content and form, form being logical, and not able to introduce new information, but being a process of truth retention, only making explicit implicit information one already contains. All content, or facts, coming from the physical world.

Two questions arise from this for me. Firstly is deception fully possible. It is possible for something to give false information, without any physical signs of it whatsoever? Secondly, does form carry zero content? This is what is traditionally held to be so, but do forms carry qualitative information of anykind? Is the quality of something entirely based on the content, or is there a quality to the form? Is symmetry beautiful, and is that a fact?

My job, as true king, is to shake confidence and prejudice to spur revaluation, and further deliberation. Certainty always returns, but displacing it, even briefly inspires some growth.

You can't value the interests of "humanity in general" except in empty abstraction, in real life you only deal with a few at a time.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evolution-the-self/201403/the-downside-compassion

https://books.google.ca/books?id=eSyPAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT51&lpg=PT51&dq=compassion+is+the+source+of+guilt&source=bl&ots=ds1C851Q3L&sig=qz4acZHd6_8wS9z2nt3bvAuAnzo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3mr7h2fbWAhVE9GMKHYMvAeQQ6AEITDAI#v=onepage&q=compassion%20is%20the%20source%20of%20guilt&f=false

https://books.google.ca/books?id=vliHyq9cPKcC&pg=PA68&lpg=PA68&dq=compassion+makes+your+enemy+my+enemy&source=bl&ots=r-dOVA6X4K&sig=8CMuhuPKrZmOv-eXP4Uhps196W4&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjf9O7c2vbWAhUK0mMKHfweA84Q6AEITzAH#v=onepage&q=compassion%20makes%20your%20enemy%20my%20enemy&f=false

https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/the-empathy-trap/article33412535/?ref=http://www.theglobeandmail.com&

There are some sources, your incredulity isn't very persuasive. Also, in insinuating that I'm some unfeeling monster, where was my compassion, friend? When seen as the enemy of things you do have compassion for, it is denied, that's where it went.

I'm doing research now, more for me, so that I have a clearer cognitive grasp, but I think that my intuition was correct. http://csus.edu/indiv/m/mayesgr/phl4/because/part5argumentexplanation.htm

According to what I'm reading, the difference is more subtle than I realized, but I figured that in an argument reasons come before the conclusion, whereas in an explanation the reasons come after the fact.

Or it goes, reasons, claim, or fact, causes. So, just because of the order of it, I think that supports my intuition that is is an explanation. It's actually interesting how it is ordered, and I like the example differentiating evidence from causes, and highlighting the order with "smoke is evidence of fire, because fire causes smoke". So that in an explanation, the fact comes before the cause, whereas in an argument, the evidence is presented before the conclusion.

It also has a sense of an assertion "although it is an unusual song", this is presented as a fact, and the information after it is presented as the causes of that fact, so I'm sticking with explanation.

Oh, shit... hmm... I didn't read it that carefully, he does seem to be suggesting that those reasons make the song unusual... I didn't notice that it was a colon...

I'm not sure either now, hopefully someone more logical, less intuitive comes along.

There is far too much conflict for compassion to be all that great as a general ethical model. It is of course good to be compassionate, but compassion is also the source of guilt, and retribution, is my only point. If someone that you are uninterested in falls in love with you, or the truth might hurt someone, then compassion is going to make you feel shitty about rejecting them, or telling them the truth. You can be forced into lots of situations if you're too compassionate, and be tempted to lie all the time. You have to reduce compassion in order to be able to set boundaries, and not just let people walk all over you, or to tell people things they don't want to hear.

Also, when you reduce someone's problems to victimization and oppression, that compassion is going to make you feel invested, and personally hurt as well, and the blame, or responsibility, rather than being placed with the self causing guilt in the first case, will be placed with the third party causing anger, frustration, and desires for retribution in this case.

You can see that compassion is partial, or indeed individual, taking of sides, and feeling equal compassion for everyone leads to a stalemate, where a super-ordinate value must be the ruling principle in all cases, meaning that "compassion" itself is a nonstarter. Sounds nice and fluffy, and is a feel good word, that signals all kinds of virtue, but it isn't a great ruling principle.

Justice is blind, impartial, cold, like a serpent, Draco (though not Draconian) uninvolved. Doctors aren't supposed to work on people they love, police are not supposed to be involved in investigations with respect to people that they are involved with in anyway, judges obviously can't be involved in trials with friends or enemies.

What "love and care" is, is deep deep bias. We definitely should have love and care for those close to us, but this means favoritism. This means bias. That's been well known for a long, long time. The idea that these should be a wide spread ethical system, is to propose tribalism.

It's an explanation and not an argument. "Although it is an unusual song" is an assertion, an argument would say "therefore", or "that makes it", or some other phrasing that suggests that the conclusion that it is an unusual song follows from something else he has said.

I just don't find those to be very interesting problems, they either play on different tenses, or recursion.

As I said, the Pinocchio one is sourced, and if you're just going to reinvent the rules as they suit you, then it isn't about Pinocchio, nor a dilemma that he could be said to find himself in. It becomes fan fiction at that point.

Plato could maintain that statements that predict the future are indeterminate, or undecidable, like Schrodinger's cat stuff, and reject it entirely, as it can not at this time be determined to be true or false, and the rules require a true or false statement.

Both of those are problems with living your statements. Though I would solve the first with Bill and Ted's excellent adventure rules, where they could just magic events or objects to themselves at their whim, as long as they maintained that they would later use their time machine to make it happen, so that the consequences of their future facilitation were reaped right there in that moment. Plato could say "okay, fine" and let Socrates cross, and then throw him in the water ten years later on a whim, when and where he'll do it isn't actually qualified, or made mutually exclusive.

Neither really is the Pinocchio one, as I don't believe that it is ever stated that it is impossible for his nose to grow unless he lies. All because every time he lies his nose grows, doesn't mean that it is impossible for his nose to grow at all otherwise. That's a hidden premise that is required.

In the first case, since it isn't really based on something, you could probably get a good lawyer to write Plato's foot into his mouth, but not in the second case, as that is sourced.

Well, you can't actually do both. You can say both fine though.

This is true in one sense, and false in another. A lot of business is predicated on superfluous, and damaging exchanges, in our deals, I'm getting profit, and you're getting stuff that you don't need, and may even be harming you. This becomes less and less true the closer to the top, or more direct involvement you have with them, then far more equitable profitable back-scratching exchanges are taking place. More like classist identity, than full on predator. If they were too impulsive, then they wouldn't be able to develop and maintain complex plans. If they were too lazy, then they wouldn't be able to do all of the work, and elbow rubbing that they would do to do. If they were too abrasive, or every man for themselves types, then they wouldn't be able to develop mutually beneficial networks of individuals, working together, all profiting, and towards the same goals.

Just like on every level, people need to not be too big of selfish assholes, or they'd never make it anywhere. The intelligence gap and strategic prowess of the individual that could fool everyone along the way, and into the longterm, and not just for short term benefits with high relationship turnover is an extreme rarity indeed.

The class that finds a way to make money off of the lower classes without having to put in as much effort, or with inequitable trades themselves are only able to pull it off because they actually do tend to be more intelligent, or really good people people. Most everyone would do it if they could, and don't refrain out of higher principles, but inability.

I'm not a fan of hell as a scare tactic, and heaven as a reward, as it sets up the whole televangelistic notion of "prosperity blessing", in that it implies that the wicked are punished, and the good rewarded, so that goodness itself is merely prudence.

I just find that childish, and also in direct contradiction to obligation, and other people's happiness. Since happiness is all that matters, and the only good, one ought to only honor obligations that make them happy, and when making others happy conflicts with my happiness, they can die in a ditch.

You either have to make exceptions that put happiness into a second order below another value, without admitting that you hold other values higher, or simply say fuck the world, and everyone else when it conflicts with my happiness, in complete support of my OP, that you should just do whatever the fuck you want as long as you can get away with it, and suffer no consequences.

Quick, everyone change their vote!