Calm down. From age 3. This happens. If you were interested in finding out anything about what you're criticising, you'd probably not have jumped on any chance to show the world I'm an idiot. — fdrake

You're the one not interested in finding out anything. You don't even wonder how it is even possible or coherent for a man to claim to be a woman. You simply take their word for it. Why don't you take a schizophrenic's word for it? Again, I'm asking for consistency in the application of your arguments.

Because they want special treatment, not equal treatment.
— Harry Hindu

Baseless assertion. — fdrake

No it isn't. I don't make baseless assertions. I make assertions based on observation and logic. If you want people to change the words they use around certain people because of their feelings, then you should be applying that rule to everyone, not just those whose political ideology you support.

How can I be consistent when you've decided what I've believed is inconsistent? You never actually go away and read anything about anything. I would love to have an informed discussion with you about this kind of thing, but you never want to inform yourself about the perspectives you're criticisng. You accounts in some box purely of your own invention (well, your ideology's), decide what people are saying, then come in all guns blazing.

You're obviously not interested in having a "reasoned debate" on the topic. In which people at least understand the other's perspective and then criticise it. You're interested in a bloodsport of worldviews, that you're going to portray as the natural functioning of reason on logic, which is always in agreement with what you've decided is true beforehand. Funny that. — fdrake

I only decide something after I have evidence, and you provided plenty of evidence that you aren't consistent. How would you know if I ever go away and read anything about anything? Talk about baseless assertions. You are consistent when your statements are consistent.

I take what you say, and ask you to clarify for consistency's sake, but you'd rather engage in ad hominems rather than answer the questions. They aren't rhetorical. Then need answers to make sense of what you already said. You seem to think that your words are religious gospel and uncontestable. I'm sorry to hurt your feelings. They aren't.

Stop being so incurious and intellectually lazy and google what you've asked me. Or make do with what I've already written on this thread. Or do neither. I'm done feeding trolls here. — 180 Proof

As a matter of fact, I Googled the book you posted about, provided a link to a review of the book with excerpts, quoted an excerpt in a response to your post, and questioned you on it, and you simply can't respond to it. So, I have actually done what you requested and you still avoided it. I thought you were a better debater than this. It goes to show how politics, like religion, can be a detriment to a logical mind.

Yes. Why do you think people want to have their voices amplified then? — fdrake

Because they want special treatment, not equal treatment.

Say someone who's been skeptical of their gender from birth, but doesn't identify with the... — fdrake

phhhtttttlmao - skeptical of their "gender" from birth? How do you know that a newborn that has just come out of it's mother is skeptical of it's gender when it doesn't even know it has arms and legs yet?

Wait you don't believe in that, either. — fdrake

Exactly. I don't believe that stupid shit you just said.

It's just another internet right talking point, and you're here to take the predictable line under the banner of truth and reason. — fdrake

Well, yes. Just take your own argument and apply it to Christian vs. atheist debates, or "white privilege" debates where you can say what you want that offends others. If you were consistent, then we shouldn't be telling Christians that their god doesn't exist because it hurts their feelings, and we shouldn't be labeling others as racist because it offends them.

You seem to think free speech entails only saying things that don't hurt YOUR feelings, and to hell with everyone else's feelings that disagrees with you.

But you knew that.

And your pretence that I have not answered your question is not endearing. I have pointed out that sentience develops somewhere between the conception and birth; and that those who demand a firm date for its development are acting disingenuously.

Further, Harry, it seems that you and I agree that abortion is acceptable up until at least the end of the first trimester.

So are you just being contrary? — Banno

According to you post, if being disingenuous is demanding a firm date and you say that we both agree on a firm date, then we're both being disingenuous. Do you ever check your posts for consistency before posting them?

We can influence our negative biases by providing positive experiences that counteract them, simply. This can be done deliberately or unintentionally to ourselves and others. Of course, it can also occur by chance. For an example in popular culture, I saw a movie last night that appeared to be trying to counteract the negative image that the Trump administration is painting of South American immigrants. In the new Terminator movie [spoiler altert], it's an illegal border crossing Mexican woman who turns out to be the savior of humanity. If Trump made the movie, the hero would be a blond-haired white dude and all the killer robots would be Mexican. See how that works? — praxis

Yes, and if you go to another country their movies are even more xenocentric. In other words, the U.S. is more open-minded and less xenocentric than most other countries, yet you and your side are lambasting the U.S. You just provided evidence that supports my argument. See how that works?

Stop being so incurious and intellectually lazy and google what you've asked me. Or make do with what I've already written on this thread. Or do neither. I'm done feeding trolls here. — 180 Proof

Ad hominems.
When did it become incumbent upon those who disagree with you to research and defend your own arguments? You're the one that is lazy. I'm asking questions about what you've already written on this thread and you just keep repeating yourself or avoiding the questions. You simply can't be intellectually honest, and it's truly pathetic for someone of your caliber.

Why you frame your responses in this thread as an intent to amplify the free speech of gender non-conforming people rather than as an invocation of free speech to resist the perturbation of language norms is beyond me. It's like you're using free speech to marginalise someone; to stop them from articulating suffering so you do not have to accept it. — fdrake

No one's voice should be amplified in a society where we are all equal and have free speech. That is something you don't seem to understand. Free speech doesn't mean that you get to use your emotional state to dictate what others can or can't say. It means that others can stay things that you don't agree with and you have to live with it or argue against it using logic, not your subjective emotional state, because everyone has subjective emotional states, so who's subjective emotional states win, and who decides? Logic should be the only process by which people's words are accepted or rejected.

Does it really make sense to call them "simulations" because "simulation" only makes sense if there is a "reality" to compare it to. — Harry Hindu

That’s a good point. I suppose future humans might use historical records to recreate a reality. I’m not sure what landscape non-human beings would use as a model. — NOS4A2

There would be no such thing as simulations - only a reality where Big Bangs would be the creation of a new universe by previous entities in pre-existing universes, ad infinitum. Do the "simulations" that we create in computer systems qualify as other universes? If not, then how would you know that this is universe is a simulation?

Why would I need to have their experience if I can have information about their first-hand experience and still get the same relevant information?
— Harry Hindu

Well you'd be missing the qualia. — Echarmion

But why would I need the qualia to know what they are thinking? Doesn't qualia let us know what form their knowledge/awareness takes, rather than what their knowledge/awareness is about? Isn't what it is about what is important and useful? Why would I need to access their qualia?

Can we be able(in future) to use some machine to read the thought of person? Is it accorded with the philosophy?
— nguyen dung

It's probably impossible to directly read thoughts. Thoughts are bound up in the individual experience of whoever has them, and you cannot recreate them without copying the entire person.

You can probably still extract a lot of information though. — Echarmion

Why would we need to directly read thoughts? If we get the information we need by getting at what their thoughts are about, then what else would we need, and why?

You aren't, though. Your argument has the usual inconsistency and incompleteness - the same fault that others have pointed out many times.

Try setting out what you are thinking in a clear fashion. — Banno

You thinking about your own posts, not mine.

How about actually responding to this, where I explain when sentience occurs within the womb and how that should determine when it should be immoral to have an abortion:

The fetus has a brain with synapses and can feel, hear, smell and taste by the end of the second trimester. You didn't seem to address my actual question either. When does someone start the "becoming" of being "dignified"? What is sentience, and how do we know that you have it? You often insult others that don't think the way you do and therefore don't treat others in a "dignified" manner. Why shouldn't you be aborted? You say sentience is a requirement, yet the second-trimester fetus has sentience.

I don't see a problem in the day-after pill, or having an abortion within your first trimester, but to wait until sentience develops would immoral, according to your own statements, and I would agree. — Harry Hindu

Answer the question in bold.

Racism. This is prejudice instituted (i.e. made normative) and executed by Business Practices in tandem with State (and/or Church) Policies. — 180 Proof

You keep saying this and I keep responding with requests for you to point to the Business or business practice and State, Church (remember when I asked you why blacks embrace a white, European concept like Christianity if white systems and concepts are racist, and you didn't respond?), and policies that are racist, and you don't respond.

We have equal treatment laws in the books.

There are many minorities in positions of power that can change my life for the worse if they wanted.

Minorities have the power to call someone racist without any proof and the media comes running.

Many businesses, states and churches are run by minorities, or have minorities at the top of the hierarchy of these institutions.

So for the umpteenth time, where is the systematic, institutionalized racism?

Prejudice. This is socialized (or experientially conditioned) self-serving bias against members of (designated or not - ethnic/color, class, gender/sexuality, sectarian, etc) out-groups. — 180 Proof

What is the difference between something that is socialized and something that is instituted? You still haven't made a clear distinction between what is prejudice and what is racist.

Bias. This is involuntary (though not intractably incorrigible) reflex of perception/cognition-blindness to complexity or to one's own perplexity. — 180 Proof

An involuntary blindness to complexity? How do you expect to change the ideas of someone who has involuntary blindness? How do you expect to change their minds? I thought the first two definitions were whack, but this one takes the cake. This definition seems to say that no one could ever be aware of and therefore mitigate their biases.

There must be a purpose for me to notice skin color. What would it be for? In what context?


With the definitions you provided, I have shown that minorities, and many people in this thread who argue from the same side as you, fall into those definitions, and that we should hold them equally responsible for their biases, prejudice and racism.

What is the racial composition of the mods that run this forum? Is this forum run by mostly whites? Is this forum racist? It seems that your definitions make the case that this forum is racist. If it's not modded by mostly whites, the what does that say about whites being the only ones in power?

Can we be able(in future) to use some machine to read the thought of person? Is it accorded with the philosophy? — nguyen dung

What does this say about the inaccessibility of the first-hand, subjective, experience? If we can use external machines to read the thoughts of a person, and what we see on the machine's screen isn't the first-hand, subjectiveness of their experience, rather it is numbers and letters, or lines on a graph that represent their first-hand, subjective experiences, then can we really say that we are getting at their first-hand, subjective experience?

Why would I need to have their experience if I can have information about their first-hand experience and still get the same relevant information?

It seems pointless to ask what it is like to be that person when all you need to get at is what information that person possesses in their brain, because what it is like to be someone else is what it means to have access to the information that person has. It doesn't matter the form the information takes, only what information they have - like they are the secret admirer of a fellow co-worker.

Does the simulation hypothesis also apply to those running the simulation?

If it does, then they are just as likely as the sims to be in a simulation, as are the ones running their simulation, and so on to infinity. It’s simulations all the way down. — NOS4A2

Does it really make sense to call them "simulations" because "simulation" only makes sense if there is a "reality" to compare it to.

Nope. Just saying that FAR more black people have been NOT HIRED because they are black for the last 50 years than those who were hired to fill diversity quotas (and obviously it was WAY worse before the civil rights movement). This does not seem all that contestable to me, but if you require absolute proof, I can't do that...but I also cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow despite having a lot of information suggesting that it will. — ZhouBoTong

uh, so a claim without any proof isn't contestable? MMMMkaaaaaaay..................
Unicorns are racist because there are mostly white unicorns.

I'm talking about putting effort into being aware of our subconscious biases and dealing with them responsibly.

Any subconscious biases that black and brown people have against the police and judicial system may be wellfounded. In The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander argues that the mass incarceration of black and brown people in the United States that started with the 'war on drug' has stripped away their civil rights to a point comparable to the era of Jim Crow ("the more things change, the more they stay the same").

Mass incarceration due to the "war on drugs."

Note that many studies show that there's no substantial difference in the rate that white people consume and sell drugs compared to that of black and brown people.

Is the American judicial system colorblind? — praxis

As a Libertarian, I'm against any war, or laws on drugs.

The second chart doesn't show why blacks are being arrested. Why don't you look at the correlation between how you were raised and whether you end up in prison because you have a higher change of joining gangs or other crimes because of your socio-economic situation? There is no such thing as "white privilege". There is such a thing as "loving two-parent privilege". Cops could have a wellfounded reason to think about blacks in a certain way. I'm saying that they both should be aware of any biases they should have, and that it isn't up to just one side to check their biases.

What you are attempting to show is that it's not just the cop who is racist, but the prosecuting and defending attorney, the judge and any witnesses, who could go on TV and declare racism is why the black man is in jail for that particular case and the media would be all over it. It's a ridiculous claim based on the current environment in the U.S. where any claim of racism is put front and center by the media.

You don't even need any proof. You can just scream "Racism!" and you'll have cameras and microphones in front of your face. That is the current environment in the U.S. Do you disagree with this?

Just as we seem to notice that white kids get gunned down at schools and we clamor for gun control, we ignore all the deaths of blacks on the inner city streets by gang and drug violence with handguns, which far exceed the number of white deaths in schools by AR-15s. It seems racist to me to focus on the banning of AR-15s when more than half of people killed in violent hand-gun confrontations are black.

But then what about the astounding suicide rate of white males compared to other groups? Define "privilege".

You may not have noticed, but if you point out the reality of racism in any form, Harry Hindu will find a way to accuse you of racism. It's his one game here and he never ever gets tired of it. — Baden

Fdrake made a similar argument. I asked him to define "prejudice" and never answered the question. So, I ask you: define "racism/prejudice/bias". If it walks, talks and acts like a duck, it's a duck.

And I've been asking for awhile now for people to point out the racists in our society, when all along they are right here in this thread!

It was this to which I was referring, Harry. Are you making a death threat? That's the pretty pathetic pronouncement. And it's not something I would do.

Should I contact the mods? Or the police? — Banno

Should I contact the mods or police because you think it is ok to terminate sentient human life? It's strange that you see that as a threat rather than me pointing out another one of your inconsistencies, when I'm the one arguing that we shouldnt terminate sentient life. It was a question, not a statement, and therefore not a threat, for you to clarify your own position, but you'd rather engage in ad hominem trollong. That's too bad.

I'm rereading When Colorblindness Isn't The Answer by Anthony B. Pinn at the moment, which takes a decidely different approach to the racial colorblindness issue than I've taken in the discussion so far. I drop this book here during a lull in case anyone - no need to name names - needing to read it does so. — 180 Proof

"Why hasn’t humanism proven a more compelling alternative to theism for African Americans, American Indians, Latino/as, and so on? And, what might humanism do—on the level of community formation and the ritualizing of mundane life—to make it more appealing and more competitive with theistic organizations?" — Anthony Pinn

Humanism isn't as appealing to people (regardless of race) and theology is precisely because it make you feel more special than you really are. Humanism brings us all back to the same equal level.

Why would minorities embrace a white, European concept such as Christianity if they thought that they were being oppressed by white systems and concepts?

Hahhaha. Imagine how black people feel every time a white person is hired. — ZhouBoTong

Are you saying that all black people don't want any whites to ever be hired? Isn't that racist to put all black people into the same box, as if they all think the same because they have the same skin color?

And this:

Police may be more prone to shooting black men and boys, compared to whites of the same, because of the perceived degree of threat that police officers have of black men and boys, and not because the officers are racist. It would be responsible for police officers to be aware of their biases and deal with them as best they can. — praxis

Isn't this saying that we shouldn't hold black men and boys to the same ethical standard that we are trying to hold police too? We don't hold sharks and lions to the same ethical standard as human beings either, so does this imply that blacks aren't equally human? Statements like this and the previous one would offend me if I was a black man (I'm actually offended as a human being that other human beings talk like this). Is it a "human thing" or a "white thing" to have prejudices and biases and should we have equal expectations of all humans, regardless of race, when it comes to restraining your biases and prejudices?

I was taking your post seriously; — Banno

That's a first. You typically take the less serious and more vague route when the questions get tough.

You often insult others that don't think the way you do and therefore don't treat others in a "dignified" manner. Why shouldn't you be aborted? You say sentience is a requirement, yet the second-trimester fetus has sentience. — Harry Hindu

That's a pretty pathetic pronouncement, even by your standards. You are not worth the effort, Harry. Especially as you pretty much agree with my stated position. — Banno

So I wouldn't be able to point to some post of yours where you don't treat another member in a dignified manner?

I don't know what you believe to say that I agree because you are typically contradictory. A fetus has sentience before the end of the second trimester, so maybe we should think about restricting abortions to the first trimester.

It also seems to me that we should be having a discussion about when minds arise in a brain, or what it means to have a mind. It's interesting so see how all of these "political" discussions are really all based in answers science can/could provide. In other words, these shouldn't be politically-based discussions.

Bringing these loaded and subjective terms like "dignity" and "privilege", that you are then unwilling to define after using them, into an objective discussion doesn't help either.

I'm rereading When Colorblindness Isn't The Answer by Anthony B. Pinn at the moment, which takes a decidely different approach to the racial colorblindness issue than I've taken in the discussion so far. I drop this book here during a lull in case anyone - no need to name names - needing to read it does so. — 180 Proof

Here is a fairly detailed review with excerpts so people don't necessarily need to read it to get the gist:
https://thehumanist.com/magazine/july-august-2017/arts_entertainment/colorblindness-isnt-answer-humanism-challenge-race

I don't have time to respond now, but will later.

I would love to see how people's position on this topic fits with their philosophical idea of "becoming". How does the topic of abortion and the topic of becoming get integrated into a coherent worldview? — Harry Hindu

That's the trouble with Zombie threads.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/249231

And elsewhere. — Banno

Human dignity inheres in sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality.

It is in recognition of this dignity that a person had moral standing.

A cluster of cells, not having any of the characteristics of human dignity, has no moral standing.

As that cluster of cells develops, it grows in its ability to express sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. It grows in its entitlement to be treated with dignity.

The woman involved in a pregnancy is fully entitled to be treated with dignity.

Pregnancies that threaten the dignity of the pregnant woman may be terminated up until such time as the dignity of the developing human becomes significant. That is, when the developing human shows significant sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality.

Thereafter pregnancies may be terminated if on balance the continuation of the pregnancy will result in a reduction human dignity.

Generally, this will be around the end of the second trimester of the pregnancy. — Banno

The fetus has a brain with synapses and can feel, hear, smell and taste by the end of the second trimester. You didn't seem to address my actual question either. When does someone start the "becoming" of being "dignified"? What is sentience, and how do we know that you have it? You often insult others that don't think the way you do and therefore don't treat others in a "dignified" manner. Why shouldn't you be aborted? You say sentience is a requirement, yet the second-trimester fetus has sentience.

I don't see a problem in the day-after pill, or having an abortion within your first trimester, but to wait until sentience develops would immoral, according to your own statements, and I would agree.

chaos is a relative and pragmatic term only. it doesnt exist on an absolute level.

"randomness is just a pattern to big to see" -unknown

there is no choas, only order, and it must necessarily be eternal. because something cannot come from nothing. sure we see entropy but we also see emergence, so its just an eternal ying yang going around in circles. perfection.

an eternally looping pandeism of sorts — OmniscientNihilist

It seems to me that order would just be the opposite side of the coin of chaos and doesn't exist on an absolute level. Order and chaos would be mental categories dependent upon the existence of the other, like hot and cold, small and big, etc.. It seems that the universe is simply eternal, not chaotic or orderly as those would be anthropomorphic projections based on our current view or understanding of the eternal.

Firstly:
big bang creating/causing itself,
god creating/causing universe,
brain creating/causing consciousness,
mind creating/causing choice,
is all predicated something coming from nothing and are therefore impossible. Therefore I do not need to waste my time reading any books based on those illusions, and getting lost in details that are all based on false beginnings, like you have.

-We currently have substance therefore it must be uncreated and eternal.
-We currently have motion therefore it must be uncreated and eternal.
-We currently have order, therefore it must be uncreated and eternal.
Build your conclusions or science from and within those absolute starting points. — OmniscientNihilist

What is "substance"?

What is in motion?

It doesn't seem that order is eternal or uncreated at all. Chaos is uncreated and order comes about only by finding, or creating, patterns in the chaos. That is how it seems to me. It seems that what is the Self is orderly and what is not (the universe) is chaos, and that I try to project my created order onto that uncreated chaos.

Why would I have this experience this moment in typing my post and then later, after submitting and re-reading it have the experience of remembering typing it and only any others that are preceded with the scribbles, "Harry Hindu"? It seems a strange coincidence of experiences to have if I can claim authorship of all posts, and not just the "Harry Hindu" ones.

What does that say about the meaning of the word, "authorship", or "plagiarism"? "Words" and "language" become meaningless as language is meant for social environments - one in which many minds exist and exchange information through the shared medium of a shared world. How could such a thing as "social" or "language" come to exist in a reality where there is only one mind? What does that say about the words, "consciousness", "mind" and "reality"?

Secondly:
Don't assume the universe or the brain continue to exist when you're not looking at them. The only thing that's proven is this consciousness here now, as it is here now, and nothing else. Any other belief just happens in consciousness here now. A belief in the universe, the brain, matter, all happens in and of consciousness here now and therefore proves nothing except for consciousness here now.

Build your conclusions around that absolute starting point.

Consciousness is not in the body the body is in consciousness,
Consciousness is not in the universe, the universe is in consciousness,
and it must be eternal.

So you see my good sirs I AM the creator of the universe. — OmniscientNihilist

And you created the universe just so you could argue with yourself? Great show!

Can followers of Marx be right that this could have really happened from a purely materialistic perspective? If consciousness can come from a brain, why can't the universe move itself into the big bang? Can the singularity be it's own causality without making it spiritual? — Gregory

Maybe the problem is thinking consciousness comes from a brain rather than the other way around? Brains are found in consciousness, but how do we really know that is what exists out there - material brains? What does it even mean to say it's "material" and to imply that consciousness is something different than material? Implying that consciousness and brains are somehow different substances creates more problems, like how do they interact?

Can something come from nothing? Logically speaking no...

Can the universe create itself from nothing? no.
Can a God create a universe from nothing? no.

Can consciousness create itself from nothing? no.
Can the brain create consciousness from nothing? no.

Can consciousness ever be certain anything beyond itself (e.g. brain or universe) even exists? no.
Does consciousness have any real evidence for anything other then qualia, which is itself. no.

End result: Consciousness concludes itself to be the eternal spiritual creator of everything within/of itself, which is all that exists. I am God. — OmniscientNihilist

No, I am God, and you are merely scribbles on a computer screen that I am the actual author of. It seems that you just explained yourself out of existence - or at least the existence of a human being that can type posts on a forum and submit them. From my perspective you only exist as scribbles on a screen with no cause. If I am the primary cause, then "your" posts are actually my posts - it's just that I don't remember typing them.

I would love to see how people's position on this topic fits with their philosophical idea of "becoming". How does the topic of abortion and the topic of becoming get integrated into a coherent worldview?

Listen, we are all here to be philosophers. While we may have differing views, cultures and backgrounds, let’s not forget we are here to increase our awareness, collaborate and seek knowledge. This is a community and none of us, not a one of us here will be ever be perfect or correct in everything we say and if you are trying to hold yourself to that standard then you are carrying an impossible to manage burden. — Mark Dennis

Perfection is a myth. There is no such thing, and impossible to be something that doesn't exist. I don't try to be perfect. I try to be logical. Logic, not perfection, is what many people on this forum are lacking.

To be perfect is to be unassailable, so it stands to reason that if you are being assailed then you are not perfect. It’s okay to be not perfect because nobody else is either. Even if perfection were possible, if you’ve ever played any video game with cheat codes activated for god mode etc, then you’ll know that it gets boring after awhile. — Mark Dennis

People blind themselves to the truth and will assail your views for that reason. The reasons people blind themselves to the truth are mainly because they have established an emotional attachment to the belief they are defending. Religion and politics are two of the main fields of philosophy where I see things get out of hand because the posters have allowed their emotions to dominate the conversation rather than their reason.

If we all used logic, it doesn't mean that we will agree. It means that the conversations will be intellectual, honest, and useful.

Lots of companies have voluntarily adopted diversity quotas. It's marketing. Get a lawyer and challenge the practice if you feel trampled by it. — frank

What do you mean, "It's marketing"? What are they marketing and to whom?

Why would you need to declare that you are treating people fairly? Why is it called a diversity quota rather than a fairness doctrine?

For example, we say things like, "what do you mean?",
— Harry Hindu

If the meaning were literally in the text marks or sounds, how would it make sense to ask anyone "What do you mean?" The text marks or sounds are what mean something, and supposedly you just perceive the meaning from the text marks or sounds. — Terrapin Station

The answer is in the same post that you cherry-picked.

For me, "meaning" is all causal phenomenon — Harry Hindu

we say things like, "what do you mean?", as if we're trying to get at the user's meaning, not ours. In other words we are trying to get at the cause of the scribbles on the screen - the ideas the person had when typing those words. I want to understand what you mean with your word use, not what I mean. — Harry Hindu

So I didn't say the meaning literally lay in the text marks or sounds. I said that it lies in the causal relationship between the text marks and sounds and your ideas that caused the text marks and sounds to be made.

There was a lot of other stuff and questions asked of you in that post that you avoided in your cherry-picking.

Nonsense, In any democracy or representative government all citizens are going to be somewhat effected by other people in the society. I'm not sure how you can argue with this. Do you know how democracy works? — christian2017

Sure. Majority rule, right?

I don't see how what I said has anything to do with understanding that I am a social animal. Interacting with others is how I make a living. It's also interesting. You can learn things from other people. Libertarians aren't necessarily hermits, if that is your anti-libertarian talking point.

The basic philosophical view of a Libertarian is skepticism. I don't know what is best for you, or how you should live your life. I have a basic assumption that you are similar to me in that you don't get your kicks off of hurting others or stealing from them and that most people are like that. We only need protection from those that do, and a libertarian can understand the logic in having law enforcement (with oversight) keep the peace so economic freedom can flourish and be free of corruption.

Believe it or not roads mainly help people who cars, but that being said roads should still be paid for by the government. Im not sure there is any point in argueing with you because you seem content with just assuming the poor are just lazy. Politicians can come up with creative ideas without imposing on the tax payer — christian2017

Sure, libertarians can see the benefit in supporting our infrastructure that enables more economic freedom. You seem to be confusing libertarians with anarchists. Libertarians are for limited government, not no government, and I don't know how you came to the idea that I assume poor people are lazy from anything that I have said. You must be getting this stuff from some authoritarian socialist handbook, or something. People can be poor for various reasons and support nets are fine, but need to be more strictly monitored.

Most laws (even laws that don't impose on the tax payer) are complicated... — christian2017

...unnecessarily so.

if there is a way to increase comfort of a worker without imposing on the tax payer then that is what the government should do. Modern governments are going to be somewhat complicated whether people want to accept it or not. We shouldn't just assume everything has to be so simple. Simplistic thought very often leads to stupid decisions. Or we can just continue to assume the poor have a bad work ethic. Globalism, international investors and automation have had a very negative effect on the lives of Americans. — christian2017

Why does the government need to step in when there are so many other options? Why is the answer to all social problems more government? Can you provide an example of a worker being uncomfortable at work? I don't understand what you mean - making the worker "comfortable". Should the company hire massage therapists for the workers? You know that the price of the goods or service you purchase from that company would go up, right? What is the problem and what is your proposed solution?

How do you feel about restrictive zoning laws? Feel free to ignore my other posts for various reasons. — christian2017

I feel that local communities should be deciding how their land is used for the local community.

Why did you pretend to be a trans person in another thread you tried this crap in? — fdrake

So instead of answering the question to define your own use of terms, you swing at me with this off-topic crap?

If you want to take this to another thread, I'd be happy to.

How does one prove that racism occurred? Do I launch an investigation into the corporation because they're showing preference to minorities? — Harry Hindu

After reading this part, did you laugh out loud as if I had a chance in hell to launch an investigation into the corporation because they're showing preference to minorities, because society would laugh at me. Where would my white privilege be in this instance?

Have your rights been trampled on? — frank

Every time an employer hires a person because they are black. I'm a current participant in the job market.

But this goes back to another thing I said, which perhaps you did miss, and perhaps may even be a response to your retort after reading my first statement. How does one prove that racism occurred? Do I launch an investigation into the corporation because they're showing preference to minorities? Should there be a quota on what percentage of which race each company has? That would be extremely difficult for many small businesses which only operate in a local area where certain race group are more dominate. What is the solution?

My whole point is, if you can use logic and reason to come up with a solution that is better than being part of the problem you're trying to solve, then why not prefer that solution?

So there are two problems with what 180, Banno, fdrake, and unenlightened are saying. One, they have yet to point to racists. All they can do is make these wild general accusations that don't fit observations (being prejudiced). And then their solution is more prejudice.

Logic. Your skin color only matters in biological/medical contexts (except between group vs within group variability when classifying by sociological race doesn't vindicate them as biologically relevant categories), and should not not matter in political/judiciary contexts (fiat equality vs equality of opportunity & systemic discrimination aside).
— Harry Hindu

This is the typical "squeaky wheel gets the grease" political tactics where the loudest groups get the special treatment, while the silent majority gets their rights trampled on.
— Harry Hindu

Why did those bloody abos get an apology when I didn't.. — fdrake

Why are you quoting my posts and then editing them without any notification that you edited them (trolling), instead of answering a simple question I asked?

I write something--I create a set of marks like this, and I do so largely per conventions of making marks like this (to the extent that I don't do that, this whole process becomes much more difficult), and you then have to assign meanings to it when you read it. You might be able to do that in a manner that makes sense to you, and you might not. When you do not, you say that you do not "get my meaning," you ask questions about it, etc.

But if you can assign meanings especially so that extended text from me makes sense to you, so that no matter how much I write and you read it, things keep rolling along coherently, consistently, etc., for you, then you say that you "get my meaning."

Meanings wouldn't just be "patterns of behavior," which I agree can be objective. Meanings are mental associations that you make. It can be an association of a pattern with something else--the pattern signifies such and such to you. The act of taking something to be a signification is the meaning part--neither the signifier nor the signified are the meaning. The association, so that the signifier is taken to point at the signified, is the meaning part. — Terrapin Station

So for you, "meaning" is only a causal mental phenomenon, but that doesn't seem to apply to how we commonly use the term, "meaning", or "means".

For me, "meaning" is all causal phenomenon and fits the common pattern that we see humans use the string of scribbles, "meaning".

For example, we say things like, "what do you mean?", as if we're trying to get at the user's meaning, not ours. In other words we are trying to get at the cause of the scribbles on the screen - the ideas the person had when typing those words. I want to understand what you mean with your word use, not what I mean.

We also say things like, "The tree rings in the stump mean the age of the tree.", or "that word means this", we are referring to an objective relationship or pattern that all humans would agree on exists independent of our own interpretations. In other words, some people would have to admit they are wrong in their meanings. Your view doesn't seem to allow one to be wrong in applying meaning.

Because I'm genuinely curious why you'd think that I believe there are no objective processes. I'm literally hoping for an answer, hoping you'll tell me why you think that. It could be because you misinterpreted something I said, but I don't know. — Terrapin Station

But the only answer you'd get would be your own associations you make with my pattern of word-use. You'd never understand my reasons - according to your view they would be your reasons.

I'm just clarifying that on my view, no two things (so no numerically distinct things) are literally the same--the identical whatever. Things can be similar, but not literally the same. — Terrapin Station

So if I were to say that all hydrogen atoms have the same number of protons and electrons, that wouldn't make sense to you?

Even a libertarian would have to understand some minor concessions would have to be made to their basic philosophy in order to keep their taxes low. Any member of a democracy or reprensentative democracy would have to accept this fact. — christian2017

Nonsense. The way you keep taxes low is keeping the government small - which is a fundamental tenant of libertarianism, not a concession a libertarian would have to make.

As for the fiscally conservative thing you are right, but that being said, i can promise you the number one issue for most libertarians in my area is fiscal conservatism. — christian2017

I can see that being the case as the country is already pretty socially liberal. Religion is on the decline and out of our public school system, gay marriage, abortion rights, etc., but our economic freedoms are being threatened with the government overreach and expansion. It doesn't matter what party is in power either. This is why we need to either incorporate a third or more parties, or just abandon the party system altogether (I'd be more in favor of the latter). We should vote for ideas, not people or party.

In the latter quote he's questioning whether there is systemic racism in the US, by which I assume he means racism that is an aspect of the system. With a narrow definition of "system" as the government, Harry is right. If there is some other system that is exhibiting racism, someone should just point it out to Harry. My own opinion is that racism is primarily the same as sexism: it's a way that people make themselves feel better about themselves, so it's personal. There is a portion of the US population that would like racism to become systemic. They're white supremacists and neo-Nazis. At present, they aren't in charge. I don't think Harry wants them to gain that control. I agree with about 5% of Harry's philosophical ramblings, but he's never struck me as a neo-Nazi. Did I miss something? — frank

No, you haven't missed anything.

I have asked numerous times for the ones making these spooky claims to point to the racist culprits, but I can't get any names. I asked them to define the terms they are using, but those requests are ignored. So no one has any clear idea of who, or what, this boogeyman is that is holding down minorities even though I see minorities in positions of power that can change my life for the worst if they wanted. This is the typical "squeaky wheel gets the grease" political tactics where the loudest groups get the special treatment, while the silent majority gets their rights trampled on.

(1) Harryhindu posts in a thread regarding a prejudice or systemic injustice.
(2) Harryhindu attacks all narratives which affirm the relevance of the prejudice and the existence of systemic injustice by trying to beat them at their own game: the people highlighting said prejudice or systemic injustice are the real prejudiced people.

Move along people, move along.
— fdrake

Then define "prejudiced". — Harry Hindu

But If it weren't, you (or the worldview you promote) exhibits the prejudice. — fdrake

Then define "prejudice". Is this really that difficult? You're the ones throwing around this word inconsistently. How exactly are you using it? It seems to me that you believe the "prejudice" is only a characteristic of people with a certain genetic condition of having pale skin. Is that not an example of prejudice?

To whom?

And if you say my (s)kin doesn't matter, but I say it does, who decides? — Banno

Logic. Your skin color only matters in biological/medical contexts, not in political/judiciary contexts.

Riiiiiiiiight ... Ok, Shrek. :up: — 180 Proof

Great! I'm so glad that you finally see the error in your logic, Donkey.