What is an issue? Can I have a party that says "People should have unfettered access to abortion" and "People should have unfettered access to abortion and the government should pay for it" as a single issue party? What about a party that says "People should have unfettered access to abortion" and "People should have access to any reproductive technology/treatment of their choice"? And then if I couple that with broader benefits for low income families?

I just don't see how an artificial limit on what I can advocate for with like minded individuals strikes anyone as progressive. Progressivism, at least to me, seems most effective when people are organized. Limiting political organizations (and thereby prohibiting the pooling of money for common expression) of necessity favors wealthy individuals. Unless of course you think that in addition to eliminating parties you want to otherwise limit people's political speech/behaviors — Ennui Elucidator

How is abolishing political parties imposing limits on peoples' ideas? If anything, it removes those limits.

You seem to be forgetting that you vote for candidates which have stances on multiple issues, not just one. So by focusing on one you may end up voting against your position on other issues.

And if abortion is the one issue that a person cares about, then I feel sorry for that person. But sure, if we can encourage people that don't want to be parents to not be parents then that would be a good thing. I'd just have to ask why you think abortion is the best method of birth control. Abortion should be the last resort and as a last resort I would support it.

Anyway, I agree with you on a fundamental level. It's just a matter of convenience to distinguish between us and everything else. But maybe that is part of the problem. — James Riley

Sure, it's convenient to still use the terms in this way when most people still believe that humans are special and separate from nature. You use the words that you know people will understand if you intend to communicate. Think of how you might change your use of language when speaking to a child.

On the one hand, if we view ourselves as natural, then really, we can do no wrong. We just point and say "Nature made me do it!" And even if we agree that we can still be natural *and* do wrong, we are still inclined to let ourselves off the hook in an open conspiracy. On the other hand, if we deem ourselves separate, we tend to deem ourselves as better, or special, instead of merely different. That gives excuse to devalue and marginalize everything else in nature. — James Riley

At any moment, we can only behave and think as we are designed to do given our form, memories and sensory organs - all of which are natural things. It has nothing to do with right or wrong. Nature does not dictate what is right or wrong. Humans with goals do that. Nature has no goals.

What ‘belief’? Historically the idea of ‘nation,’ today, is a relatively new idea. National identity was basically framed on the language you spoke rather than the piece of land you lived on. Passports never used to exist either. These are facts not beliefs? — I like sushi

Different languages developed because people segregated themselves from other groups. Languages didn't invade other languages. Groups of people invaded the land where other groups of people lived. Sure, 1000s of years ago, national borders weren't as clearly defined as they are now, there were still nations whose limits existed as far as a king's army could reach. History also shows that when a group of people lose the cohesion that defines their group (like a nation) others move in and take control. The plight of the Native Americans is a great example. When the various tribes united, they were a force to be respected, but individually they pretty much died out.

I think Christopher Stone likened it to an ontological problem where, at the end of the day, we are but play things made of straw. (Old Chinese thing?) — James Riley

For me, it comes down to causality. Are humans the effects of natural processes, and in turn, do they not cause changes in natural processes? If the answer is "yes" to both, then humans are as natural as anything else. In this sense, God (if one were to exist) would be natural as it would be the creator of the natural world, and has an effect on the natural world. Supernatural and artificial only make sense in the light of the natural which makes the natural fundamental.

What is truly progressive about it? That you think political parties are somehow inherently anathema to the common person such that abolishing political parties is necessary?

So far as I can tell, political parties arise as a socializing of interests amongst people. Sure, old political parties have the features of the people already invested in them, but new political parties can be single issue, multi-issue, any issue you want. How is making a law that says me and 5,000 sympathists can't work together to establish broad social policy, governmental systems, property rights, etc. good for the common man? — Ennui Elucidator

I think I could be fine with single-issue political parties. I don't think there would be much difference between that and no political parties. My main issue is with the group-think that multi-issue parties create where you join a party for one issue that you care about, don't bother educating yourself on the other issues that the party takes, and end up letting the party think for you on those issues.

There's also the issue where you may join a party because they share your goal on one issue, but then you eventually care less about the issue and more about the party itself - as if it's some sort of religion.

Just watch. I’ve abandoned it and many others have too. It is only a recent idea and hasn’t been around for long anyway. You just assume it is normal because it is all you know. The population just hit a certain critical mass that made ‘nationhood’ a more wearable premise. It’s falling quickly out of fashion now and the old language barriers are falling fast too (they were the main dictates of ‘nation’ prior to borders. — I like sushi

Sounds more to me that you simply surround yourself with like-minded individuals that reinforce this belief.

I agree. Every animal and natural process is "special" in their own way. But "special" has a higher/better/superior ring to it. At least in my mind. Thus, I find use of the term "different" to be more equalizing and accurate. — James Riley

My only gripe is of your square peg notion of humans, as if they are so different from everything else as to require a special term or meaning for a term when used in reference to humans only.

Say we discover a new species that have small primitive brains that has eradicated all other life and transformed it's entire planet's ecosystem? What about an alien species that has reshaped it's own galaxy? It is possible that there are other species or natural processes that have a larger impact on their environment than humans have on scales that dwarf the distance between humans and their Earthly counterparts. Would humans be so "different/special" then?

We might be scientists, but we aren't science. You and I never experience neutral collections of data because there's something that it's like to be Harry, or to be Uriah that shapes our view of collections of data into a personal experience of said collections. There are no generic human individuals. It is this personal POV that shapes data ingestion into a self perceiving it. The personal, perceiving self, so far, has been left out of scientific descriptions of sentience. When you get personal, which is the condition of every iteration of real-world sentience, you're now talking about the POV on the POV. — ucarr

Well sure, we each have access to a unique set of sensory data and memories that makes us individuals. That is the what it is like to be me - my unique data set and memories compared to yours.

The duality of particles vs wave is the result of two different views being made of the same thing. A view is a structure of information as well as a measurement. Minds digitize an analog world to create the meat of thought. Objects of the mind are the result. I believe that the world is process, relationships, or information, not physical. The idea that physical objects exist is the result of this digitization of the world into discrete forms in space-time. Turning your thoughts back on themselves in like the camera looking back at the monitor it is connected to. It creates a feedback loop - an infinite corridor - one akin to the void one peers into when running away with the thought of thinking about one's thoughts.

Just sounds cynical and angry mixed with a bit of misplaced optimism about how politics is some sort of vestige of power structures of yore. Political coalitions are a function of human relationships.

I actually know party members and power brokers - the sorts of people that engage in perpetuating their own power and institutional power. Even if you said that all parties ceased to exist tomorrow, they would still have the same alliances, loyalties, and social debt and assets that they had before you made your proclamation on high. — Ennui Elucidator

I don't see where I even implied, much less said, that this would or could happen overnight. Any emotional aspect that you thought that I used was simply your own projection. Sometimes stating facts to those that don't like to hear them can come across as sounding angry and cynical.

I just doesn't make any logical sense to say that something that no longer exists would still have the same alliances, loyalties, and social debt and assets that they had before. The people that made up these fundamentalist groups might still have these things in the short term, they wouldn't necessarily be useful to maintain in the short term especially if term limits were implemented as well. I never said that abolishing political parties was the only thing that needed to be done, but is a necessary thing to be done.

Do you mind providing some examples of societies where there are no political loyalties or other sorts of social capital used to organize 10,000 people dependent on cooperative trade/coexistence? — Ennui Elucidator

Truly progressive ideas don't usually have a precedence in history. That's why their progressive.

The population has/is outgrowing the need for the idea of 'country'. I'm not making prediction about what will/might happen but I cannot see a way past the dissolution of the 'nation state' this century (and see it happening already).

To unite across the globe religious doctrine was used. This spread out from one place to another. Then the religious attitude declined and we're seeing a clinging to nationhood instead (as has been happening for the last century or two). Whatever remains of the nation idea after the public loses interested will basically form the next social epoch I'd say and I think we're living through the transition right now. — I like sushi

I doubt it. It's kind of difficult for a nation to abandon nationhood when other nations aren't, and I doubt that all nations would abandon it at the same time. What do you think North Korea would do if South Korea abandoned it's nationhood? What would China do if the U.S. abandoned its nationhood and what would Iran do if Israel abandoned its nationhood?

Just like "saving the Earth", "abandoning nationhood" is only doable if EVERYONE does it.

I would like them to stop using the word "special." I think "different" would be less value-loaded. — James Riley

But every animal and natural process is "different" in their own way. So again, you could only be assuming that humans are special in some way.

There have been instances for governmental reform but generally they are sidelined as much as possible by those in power because it doesn't suit them. — I like sushi

The U.S. govt. is an elitist oligarchy after all.

In this instance the US when in splits (assuming it is still a powerhouse when it does) may open up a door to change. Either way I think the 'nation' is on its way out and I've little idea what will come next but technology will undoubtedly play a major role. — I like sushi

I'm still not sure. I think the two parties need each other and will try to hold the country together under the status quo for as long as possible. One party has no one else to blame when things go south, so the only way one party stays in power is by becoming more authoritarian - by taking away your right to complain and be angry at them.

Sometimes I use "natural" to distinguish between us and everything but us. At the end of the day, however, it's all natural. Maybe someday nature will pound this square peg that is us into the round hole that is everything else. But it's still all Her pegs and holes. — James Riley

I think that most people use the terms "natural" and "artificial" in this way, but this is just a hold-over from the obsolete view that humans are separate from nature, or special in some way. Why would humans be the only square peg? Seems that one can only make that assertion if they assume that humans are special in some way, but then what would you expect a human to initially believe about their relationship with the universe?

There is nothing that humans have done that already hasn't happened in the universe to some degree, nor is there any reason to assume that what humans do isn't determined given the type of universe we find ourselves in. Humans could be the one's that create the environment for AI to evolve and flourish, and possibly even outlasting their human designers, and this would simply all be the natural way that this universe operates. So maybe environmentalists are the one's trying to hold back the universe from evolving towards it becoming what it is destined to be given its properties. Maybe carbon-based life is the antiquated form of life and silicon-based is the "better" version. We may never know considering the limited view of space and time that we currently possess.

What is considered unnatural, is when humanity creates an element to add to the periodic table which does not occur naturally. In contradiction to this, one could say, that anything that is, is natural. — boagie

In the beginning there was only hydrogen and a trace amount of helium. Heavier elements were forged inside the cores of stars and then spewed across the galaxy when they exploded. Stars are natural forces that created new elements. Humans are no different.

P.S. I should add that it is much cheaper to purchase two politicians than ten. — James Riley

Exactly. We could establish term limits which would then increase the frequency with which one needs to buy off a politician, but then it would eventually be realized that purchasing the political parties themselves rather than the individuals would be more efficient.

The best solution would be to abolish political parties altogether.


:up: We don't necessarily need a Libertarian Party. I think that if you abolish political parties then most politicians would actually take more libertarian stances.

But supporting one of the two parties seems the only rational choice unless you want to be a protest vote. — Ennui Elucidator

Protest votes seem to be the majority type of vote in the U.S. as most of the commentary of politicians is demonizing their opponents rather than proposing their own ideas. Most people in America vote against the other party rather than for the another. As Obama has told his constituents, "I want you to stay angry." Is using anger as the reason for your vote a rational choice?

The problem is that the media has become mouth-pieces for the political parties and people only get their information from one source - the source that reaffirms their own cognitive biases. Abolish political parties and you abolish the team mentality (group-think).

The parties aren’t some abstraction, but actual groups of people who work towards their common betterment and have entrenched power structures. The typical voter who identifies as a party member... — Ennui Elucidator

No, the typical voter is a one-issue voter and only registers as a member of the party that is on their side of their one issue, even if the other party sides on other issues the voter might take on the other issues. The typical voter isn't really interested in the other issues and allow the party they've adopted to tell them what positions to take on these other issues. These are the ones that simply regurgitate what their party is saying.

In taking a more objective view of the situation you can see that the both political parties are accurate on some issues and inaccurate on others, so being a member of one forces you into this box of contradiction. Abolishing political parties would free one's mind to seek out candidates that match more of your positions on all of the issues, and not just one.

People can vote however they wish to and most prefer an A or B option so they don’t have to think too hard. — I like sushi

Yes. So abolishing political parties would be double-good in weeding out the ones that find it difficult to think for themselves from the voting system, and endowing those that do take the time to research the candidates with more options.

Two problems are more than I can handle. I don't want a third or fourth or a fifth... — TheMadFool

Then abolishing political parties would leave you with no problems. :cool:

Well, for starters, how about, wherever there’s being, there’s sentience, and vice-versa? — ucarr

How do you know this?

Each human enters the world as an instant immortal , having always existed, and being always to exist. This is the innate POV of all sentience. — ucarr

This makes no sense. If a human enters the world, then the world preceded the human entering it, and didn't always exist unless there is somewhere else other than the world from which they came that does always exist. Sounds like the typical philosophical misuse of words in an effort to awe others with their world salad.

Sentience is the primary essence of the material universe, as consciousness is the greatest of all creations. It is an essence adorned with laurel. — ucarr

Sentience is a view and a view is simply an arrangement of information - of information about states of the world relative to the state of your body. In other words, sentience is simply an arrangement of relative essences, like the temperature of your body relative to the temperature of the air around you. When we speak of existence, we're really talking about the existence of essences. If not, then what else could you be referring to when you use the word, "existence"?

Fate is defined as: “the development of events beyond a person’s control, regarded as determined by a supernatural power.” And, as for Free-Will, this is defined as: “the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate; the ability to act at one’s own discretion.” So, in hindsight, they’re complete opposites when you look at the meanings behind the terms. — Lindsay

Then this seems to beg the question. What does it mean to act at one's own discretion? It's as if free-will can achieve different things given the same set of circumstances. What choice would you have made in any given instance that would be different given the same set of circumstances, or information?

What about the saying, "Only an idiot keeps doing the same thing and expects a different result." Is the one that believes in free-will the idiot for thinking that they could have made a different decision given the same information?

Art - anything created by humans
Nature - everything else
Unnatural, artificial - anything not produced by nature
Equivocation - saying different things are the same

"Unnatural" has other meanings, for example, "perverted", "counter-intuitive".

Computers are unnatural in the sense of artificial. They don't grow on trees, for example, or fall from the sky. Some person has to put them together. — Cuthbert

If artificial = unnatural, then how does something natural create something unnatural? It's the same problem in trying to explain how something comes from nothing. Humans are the outcomes of natural processes. When we talk about how human manipulate the environment vs. how other animals manipulate the environment, we are only talking about different degrees of the same thing, not different things altogether.

Another common phrase is that "humans are accidents in nature" - as if nature had the intentions of existing without humans but somehow humans came about anyway. This notion that humans are somehow separate from nature, or special, is antiquated and is not supported by objective observations.

Humans, and what they do and create, are as natural as supernovas and a cicada swarms. One could even say that AI is natural and the next evolutionary step of life. There is nothing in the universe that says that life has to remain organic, or that organic life is the pinnacle of all life. We have yet to even search for life elsewhere in the universe, so our very narrow view from our own place in time and space limits our understanding of what life can actually be.

"Private language" is an oxymoron. There is nothing private about language as it is a social construction and social constructions are agreements between individuals on standards of behavior. Communication between individuals is the use of language so any "private" language would be a useless language.

The only reason we use language is to communicate individual ideas others. You, as an individual, are already privy to your ideas and thoughts. There is no need to communicate them to yourself.

Like most everything else, the fundamental components of language are visuals and sounds - part of the basic, fundamental components of mind, along with olfactory, gustatory and tactile sensations that all come together in what we commonly refer to as conscious experience. The brain naturally compares and distinguishes all of these sensations and tries to find patterns to improve its chances of survival. In a way, all the sensations are themselves a language in which the mind tries to understand. In a sense, the world communicates its various states to the mind of the individual via its senses. The senses are, in a way, the translators of the state of the world (which aren't mental states) into mental states for the brain to interpret. If any type of communication, or informative process, could qualify as a "private language" maybe this could be it.

The flu sometimes does mutate in a more deadly strain but because the virus is endemic most people have some resistance to it, even against a new deadlier strain. So that never resulted in pressure on healthcare capacity as Covid has and does (I've not heard of triage because of the flu, except maybe the Spanish one). Since we all rather not live in continuous lock downs (I presume) to avoid total deterioration of the healthcare system, a way out is getting enough people vaccinated instead of infected. — Benkei

How did most people develop a resistance to the annual flu - by getting it and now they have the anti-bodies? Why doesn't the same concept work for Covid?

With proper detection, isolation and contact tracing, a lot of nasty bugs could be squashed before they really can do damage, as NZ did, but it requires political will which is often absent because $$$. Closing down air traffic with China is apparently problematic. — Benkei

I don't get this part. If closing down air traffic with China is problematic, which is in essence keeping people separated to prevent the spread then keeping people 6-feet apart and limiting the number of people in a room would be problematic. China was the one that prevented any information from getting out about the virus and how it originated. And if you believe anything the Chinese govt. says then that is problematic.

This makes little sense to me. Whether it was manufactured or not doesn't change the healthcare problem. Being angry with those who allegedly made it, wouldn't diminish my annoyance towards those advocating bad policies or personal decisions. — Benkei

Many people are arguing that people should get the vaccine to prevent the virus from mutating and spreading, but the research shows that the virus can be spread even by those that are vaccinated. And if the virus can mutate even among the vaccinated, then why are we not making the same argument regarding the common flu?

Apparently you are unfamiliar with how science works. And apparently I was a fool to take your curiosity at face value. You're just another fucking idiot. Sorry to have wasted our time. Carry on. — James Riley

So you're saying science is like a religion and it's conclusions should never be questioned?

I do know how science works. You only arrive at the correct answer after making all possible mistakes.

There are no experts here. — James Riley

Many people here think that they are experts. They imply that science is like a religion where it's conclusions are never to be questioned. As an example, the info that the CDC has put forth has changed several times throughout the pandemic. Even Fauci said that masks don't protect well. Most people are just wearing cloth coverings and wear the masks improperly anyway.

I don't know about you, but I don't trust what the government and the state-run media says. The media has become a joke. They are all political propaganda machines.

sure, I suppose the "personal freedom" thing can make a point of sorts. It's just that SARS-CoV-2 doesn't care about anyone's freedom. The virus replicates propagates mutates unchecked in whatever fertile grounds, leaving victims in its wake, and that's a social thing with consequences as well as personal. — jorndoe

None of this addresses the issue of why someone should be vaccinated. As I pointed out, even the vaccinated can carry and spread the virus. So again, what is the point of vaccinating?

It seems to me that getting vaccinated or not has only implications to the individual deciding to get vaccinated or not. Everyone else each has this decision with the implications only involving themselves.

Oh "the Left" is the problem now... For fuck sake, do you guys ever try to make sense? — Olivier5

Both sides are the problem. I'm not on either side. I'm just asking questions that people refuse to answer and would rather nitpick posts than address the valid questions being asked.

Asking questions means that you haven't yet taken a side because you don't have all the information to be able to make a decision - mostly because both sides keep playing politics with the idea of personal choice.

If it was so easy to find the answers, then why not provide them here for everyone's benefit? It seems that you're more interested in playing political games than having a discussion.

Here's a question no one has asked:

If Covid-19 naturally mutated from a non-lethal virus to a lethal virus, then what is to prevent the regular annual flu from mutating into something more dangerous? Why aren't the annual flu shots being mandated if this is the case, and we should never stop wearing masks for the fear of some virus naturally mutating into something more lethal?

If Covid-19 was manufactured in a lab, then that brings a whole host of other implications that we should consider and be fearful of. One implication is that we should be more angry at the scientists manufacturing lethal viruses and unleashing the on the world, than being angry at those that are unvaccinated, which the internet shows most blacks haven't yet been vaccinated thanks to the Left's scare tactics last year when Trump was president. So are you being racist by bashing the un-vaxxed?

So, in the Left's haste to deny that the virus was man-made, they are implying that non-lethal viruses can mutate into lethal versions naturally and that we will never stop wearing masks or mandating vaccines for viruses that have the potential to mutate.

What threat are the unvaccinated to the vaccinated? If there is still a threat even though you are vaccinated, then why get vaccinated at all? If I can still carry and spread the virus even though I'm vaccinated, then what purpose is there to get vaccinated?

We all know that the more someone tells you to do something, the more some people resist. They want to make their own decisions and not be coerced. Therefore, the govt. shouldn't be in the business of telling people how to live their lives, but instead should simply be providing objective information for individuals to make their own decisions concerning their own bodies. Whatever happened to "My body, my choice"?

Facts are like truths in that they come in degrees. The relationship between some statement and some state-of-affairs is a fact/fiction or a truth/falsehood. The more some statement accurately describes some state-of-affairs, the more factual/truthful it is, and vice versa for fictions and falsehoods. The boundary one decides on where some statement is more factual than fictional can depend on what is being talked about and how detailed you need to be.

"what if the goal of a religion isn't to be factually correct?"
Then religion isn't saying anything at all. Is it a fact that I will be born again, or not? If you can't say either way, then you haven't said anything at all, so why bother making a religious claim if the claim isn't intended to point to some actual state of affairs?

Politics is the one domain where people aren't concerned about being factually correct to the point that listening to politicians speak is a waste of time. Listening to their critics is just as much a waste of time as they seem to whine about why the other side isn't using logic or making any sense. It was never their intent to make sense or be logical. Logic is the antithesis of religion and politics (group-think).

Irrelevant to the point I made had you read the entire post (but history shows that you aren't interested in reading the whole post, hence the reason why so many of your arguments fall flat in the context of the whole post that you are "responding" to.)

When is it okay to invesitgate the corruption of your political opponents? When you are absent any corruption yourself? Which politician fits this definition? Any that do are the very ones whose political carreer will come to a quick and decisive end. That is the whole point - that investigating corruption has now been defined as corrupt. It's the oldest tactic in the political playbook - blame them for the same thing that you're doing.

Two groups are committing immoral acts. — Cheshire

Then defending yourself with equal force is immoral?

Anti-vaxxer's are like climate change deniers, or in the case specific to this topic, systemic racism deniers, and are positions often taken to express tribal solidarity. I agree that the foundation of this is like religion and the value it places on social solidarity over truth or actual principles. — praxis

LOL. Just go back and listen to how the left was anti-vaxxers when Trump was president. If it was a Trump vaccine, they weren't going to take it. Now that we're under a Democrat administration, we're suppose to take it? It's the same fucking vaccine!! You see, the political parties are expecting you, like most people, to forget what they said just a couple of years ago.

Equating Anti-vaxxers to these other people is the problem I am talking about. Again, labeling people without having talked to them in order to understand them is the problem. It's just regurgitating the talking points of a particular political party, who's existence is dependent on people like you helping them demonize a certain group that you've never met or talked to.

Science never makes the claim to truth. Science expects the questioning of everything. It's not science that is dictating the truth. It is politicians and their constituents that use science to promote their own truth. Asking questions is scientific. Not asking questions is participating in group-think. Everyone should have the right to question authority. You shouldn't take offense to people asking questions about someone's claims.

I don't think that it's particularly controversial to claim that the economic recovery would be aided by as many people getting vaccinated as quickly as possible. I've heard people claim that the vaccine is more dangerous than the cure, even for the elderly. I have yet to hear what I think is a reasonable explanation for not getting vaccinated. Do you know of any? — praxis

So, the claim that the vaccine is more dangerous than the cure, even for the elderly isn't something you heard that is a reasonable explanation for not getting vaccinated? I'm confused on that point.

How is the economic recovery being helped if the vaccinated still have to mask themselves - when we have to go back to the authoritarian mandates that hurt the economy in the first place?

Ok stop. He's in jail because a reporter deemed the facts suspicious, looked into it, and raised a stink, THEN they investigated the murder like they were supposed to. — frank

Ok, stop asking reasonable questions? How religious.

The police don't know who has been killed until they have been called. Someone has to call the police for them to do something. Think of how many people are lying dead in some wilderness without anyone knowing that they are dead or even missing. Who was suppose to call the police and didn't in the case of Ahmaud Arbery? Who called the reporter? Did they also contact the police? How did the video of the killing get out? These are all reasonable questions that I would expect a reasonable person to try to answer, and not tell me to stop. If they were really interested in the truth, then getting the answers to these questions would be the goal, not trying to shut the person up that is asking the questions. They're questions, not statements or arguments.

What does a nation with systemic racism look like vs a nation that doesn't have systemic racism but has pockets of racism in some areas? — Harry Hindu

I don't know what this diatribe is about. Sounds like you're taking something personally. — frank

Asking what the difference is between the two is taking things personally? It seems to me a valid question that you are simply incapable of answering so you make a personal stab at me, committing an ad hominem fallacy, equivalent to a fundamentally religious person calling me a "sinner" for asking questions about their definition of "god".

I don't know that you can actually blame a moral theory on an outcome(which is what I did to be fair). But, moral relativism would hold that there was a time or place these acts were permissible. Moral objectivism would argue they were never permissible. Intuitively they seem wrong regardless of when they occurred, so adhering to a system that permits acts(in hindsight) that are always wrong; implies a faulty system of ethics is available. — Cheshire

Really? What if you're committing genocide/slavery against another group that is committing genocide/slavery against your own group? Many in today's political environment argue that killing or imprisoning your political opponents is a good thing.

Ummm....what did they do to Trump, actually?

The GOP utterly failed to do the choreographed selection of the party nominee (unlike the Democrats, who can rely on the ever loyal Bernie to lure in progressives and social democrats) and got a wild card with Trump. And the party is now in a state of disarray, but still holding on two the duopoly.

And let's face it: many in both parties would likely want to change things, but once the dance is going on with a certain tune, you cannot start to tango when everybody else is doing a square dance. There is no evil solid entity lurking in the shadows, no Illuminati. There are just people who think they can control the dance. Yes, there is a power elite in every country. But don't think they agree on things and can act in an uniform fashion. It's more like things happen and the elite accepts it or tries to manage somehow the process. — ssu

Trump ran on fighting corruption, like so many other politicians. Whether they actually did anything or not to fight corruption isn't what I'm trying to focus on.

I'm assuming that when you, ssu, say that you want to fight corruption you really mean it. You don't have any ulterior motives and that if you see Democrats engaged in corruption, you will fight them as hard as any Republican you see engaged in corruption, nor will you be allowing certain corporations to continue to engage in corruption because they are donating to your campaign. I hope you would assume the same thing when I say that I want to fight corruption.

Now when both parties are engaged in the same kind of corruption, then investigating one can be a threat to the other. You and I will become the enemy of both and there will be a lot worse than impeachment that you and I would be facing.

Both parties need each other, 1) to keep the nation united and not have states secede, or another civil war break out, and 2) to have someone else to blame when your ideas fail.

When you say that there are many in both parties that would likely want change, what do you mean by "change"? Anything other than abolishing all political parties and lobbyists isn't any type of change from the status quo.

An attempt at an exploration in search of objectivity, because relativism causes so much harm. — Cheshire

Intrigued by this. How do you imagine it causes harm? — Isaac

It delivered the worst humans have ever done. Slavery, Genocide, Illegal Downloading... — Cheshire

How are any of these the fault of relativism? These acts were often argued to be morally acceptable and objectively moral. It's the actual argument that these acts are objectively moral that provides the reasoning for others to participate in them.

Moral relativism doesn't make the case that these acts are what everyone should be doing. In fact, it makes the opposite case. So, because someone is engaged in illegal downloading doesn't make it ok for you to do it. That's you're own personal choice. And if you are making your moral decisions on what others are doing, that isn't moral relativism, but more of moral objectivism. So, moral relativism isn't thinking that what is good for others is good for you. It is in the understanding that you are a social animal capable of complex reasoning and that using reason to navigate the social environment is in your best interests as a social animal.

Goals? This is a goal. To enslave half of mankind.

You have to qualify now what those goals should or must be. And ay, there is the rub. That is precisely what the debate has been for thousands of years, with no end in sight. — god must be atheist

It's not qualifiying what the goals should be, but whether any goal has a moral property of good or bad (goals are more than just being good or bad) in some sense independent of the person, or group, with the goal in question. Enslaving mankind and freeing mankind are different goals. Whether they are good or bad is something different, and is seems to always depend on the person's, or group's, other goals.

There has been at least one other issue in philosophy that has been solved: Zeno's paradox of the hare and the turtle (the hare will never catch the turtle ... like heck it won't.) — god must be atheist

Another that has been solved is which came first, the chicken or the egg? The egg - evolutionary speaking.

but we can't actually safely and without any doubt in our minds decide what feature in an act makes it moral, immoral or amoral. — god must be atheist

Sure we do. Goals is the feature. If you didn't have goals what would morality be? Those that help realize your goals are good, those that inhibit them are bad. We even label events not caused by any humans, that either inhibit or help achieve our goals as "good" or "bad" events. People or events that have no impact on your goals are not considered to fall into the territory of ethics.

Understanding that morality is subjective isn't that difficult. We all have our own goals. Some goals we share primarily because we are the same species, or members of the same culture, so it can appear as if there is an objective aspect to morality, until you meet a new civilization or person with different goals that include how to inhibit your goals.

I know that Scientific realism is the common sensical position, and I have a lot of time for it.
I guess I'm considering a view of idealism and realism at the same time. For example, I say that physical nature exists independantly of human cognition, which is a realist statement, but then I realise that such a statement, that nature exists independantly of human cognition, is borne of human cognition, and wouldn't be possible without it. Then I get stuck in a double bind. — Aidan buk

Stop thinking of it in dualistic terms and think of it monistically, or else you're left with explaining how physical things interact with ideas.

What does it mean for something to exist independently of human cognition, or human congnition exist independently from physical nature? Are they not causally related? I think you are confusing the map with the territory.

Well, it works well for those in power wanting to hold on to the status quo. — ssu

As such, essentially every government in the world is an oligarchy where the elite few rule the many and limit and strictly control the new members to their club. Just think if you or I were able to become president - what they did to Trump would be nothing compared to what they would do to people like us looking to really change things.

Anyway, if you have so much discontent towards how things are in the country, both from the left and the right, make sure that the opposition will be divided and incapable of unifying. Has worked in other countries, actually. — ssu

Dividing is just practicing what they are doing. You divide people by labeling them. Stop labeling. No more Democrats or Republicans.

I've come to the conclusion that the polarization of American politics is an active if not openly declared strategy (or policy) implemented by the two ruling parties to stay in power. They only ease the tension if some nutcase comes along and starts shooting politicians of one or the other party (as has already happened). Otherwise, make the other side as evil as possible in the "culture war". — ssu

I agree. The argument that voting for a third party is a vote for the other party is part of this strategy to scare you into voting for one of the two. But when you see both as equally evil, then voting third, fourth, fifth, etc. party (or just no parties) is the only reasonable option.

the foundation of the problem...
— Harry Hindu

... isn't identity politics, it's politicizing some issue, and that can be done with practically anything. Currently popular is vaccination vs antivaccination. Many Trumpian antivac supporters are themselves vaccinated, though they may decline to admit it, inanely claiming HIPAA rights violations or whatever, and apparently could care less if a portion of their followers die from not being vaccinated.

Even if there were a significant risk with getting vaccinated, shouldn't Trumpian "conservatives" be willing to take a health risk in order to get the economy going full-steam? Isn't that what a brave patriot would do for their nation's economy? That seemed to be their courageous logic at the beginning of the pandemic. How did it get turned around? If you have no actual principles and are merely a group-thinking follower, the Trumps of the world can make you dance like a mindless puppet on strings. — praxis

Yes, it's politicizing identity. What do you think anti-vac and vaccinated are, if not identities? It's using labels as weapons against your political opponents.

A large percentage of unvaccinated are blacks. Why aren't they getting vaccinated? Maybe we should ask people why they aren't getting vaccinated instead of demonizing them when you have no idea what their reasoning is? What gives you the right to determine the medical decisions of others? Should others make medical decisions for you?

There's two sides to the coin. — frank

But you were talking about string theory. Can you make up your mind which analogy you're going to use? By narrowing it down to only two (views), limits the possible options or solutions you can think of or understand.

Emotion traps people. We want there to be recognition of racial bias in society so that DAs can't get away with just ignoring the murders of black men like Ahmaud Arbery.

But emotion clicks in and says that all white people are complicit, which isn't true, but it satisfies a bruised, frustrated heart to say it, and we just forget the more abysmal truth. — frank

The men who killed Ahmaud Arbery are in jail. Who else has killed a black person and isn't in jail, or isn't being hunted down to put in jail? The knee-jerk reaction to label every altercation between a black person and a white person as racist just makes the word, "racist" meaningless and makes it more difficult to fight real racism. Blacks and whites can disagree and it not be racist.

Labeling all white people as complicit is fighting racism with racism. In what ways are whites complicit, that blacks aren't? Don't blacks keep voting for the same Democrats for 50+ years that are part of this system of racism?

WHO is racist? Point them out so that we can fight them together. Calling everyone racist doesn't make anyone want to help you fight racism.

What does a nation with systemic racism look like vs a nation that doesn't have systemic racism but has pockets of racism in some areas?