i dont have experience in making games, but i will be making a website called 'war on truth,' and if you have something you'd like to post on it, please let me know

I agree. What about making a game?

that a very beautiful sentiment, but people don't have the ability to judge what is true at all. Here's an example right now. It's impossible to prove intent of a crime if the crime isn't performed, and now the nation's leaders are impeaching the president for exactly that. Claimed intent with no action to prove it. at all. His crime is entirely inferred. If it went to a real court it would be thrown out. There's a demonstration just down the street with hundreds of people cheering.

maybe its a good book, I will look into it, but my problem is, I can state it in five lines, and all I hear is things like 'it's not philosophy's role to help the world understand what truth is.'

If you just want to say its bullshit, its not.

Empirical observation and semantic interpretation create an epistemological gap between the statement of a proposition and truth evaluation, during which it could be meaningfully claimed the statement is true without evidence yet being known. This gap can be exploited by those wishing to propagate fake news and false beliefs, by widening the epistemological gap as much as possible, thus enabling more circulation of false claims during longer periods of doubt, and the false claims cannot be reasonably denied during that time.

It's a problem with logic itself. It seems pretty obvious to me of course, and I just think we should be trying to explain it so people suspend belief like they should.

The problem I have is, when I try talking with other philosophers about it, THAT'S when I hear alot of bullshit.

So the answer is, let the world go to hell and we'll talk to each other about how much more clever we are?

So you think explaining Popper to Trump supporters is the answer. No wonder there's cynicism. That's absurd.

That's pretty much what the Athenian assembly told Socrates. Pretty much word for word.

When I said truth is dieing of hemlock I wasnt kidding.

The reason there are degrees in philosophy is because it's meant to help society, not promulgate nihilism. Simultaneously, I see people asking what they're meant to do with a philosophy degree all the time. Well here's a real job. We need to define ways to describe what truth is for the public so these problems go away. It's what we are meant to be doing.

You know I've been talking with people about this problem for 10 years now, and my general observation is, there has been widespread absconsion from social responsibility on this issue. Philosophers are meant to be resolving these problems, not sneering at them.

Well thanks for the long and thoughtful message. It doesn't actually address my point at all. I was saying that the Iranians objected to the US arms sales, and now they've been called off, I don't expect much more hostility from Iran. The rest is rather incidental. What surprises me is that no one looks beyond Trump as an explanation.

Khomeni's been there a long time. To him, Trump's a blip. But arming Iran's neighbors is a major problem. It helps to look at it from their viewpoint.

Whatever the case on trump, I'd be surprised if there's further violence from iran. Triump can claim its because of him and everyone will seem happy

Im sure he was not expecting the senate to block his arms sales though and he will be very angry about that, although he wouldnt say so publicly, hes going to be chastising his party for a few days now.

For myself Im very surprised the gop actually stood up against him and Im less fearful of a nuclear war in the next 9 months, but in the end I dont think even the senate will be able to stop it.

So why did Trump decide to call off the attack? — Fooloso4

At the same time as Trump called the attack, the senate was debating on his sale of weapons to United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and other countries neighboring Iran. Just after the GOP made a rare move against Trump and blocked the sale, he called off the attack.

https://www.npr.org/2019/06/20/734437874/in-rare-rebuke-to-trump-senate-votes-to-block-saudi-arms-sales

No news media agency has noticed the timing.

It was likely the arms sales to its neighbors that caused Iran to get more aggressive in the first place, and unless Trump tries to veto the bill blocking the sales he negotiated, or retaliates, its likely to be the end of any Iranian military action. But if the sales had been approved, Trump would probably have carried through with the attack.

So thats what actually has been going on in all likelihood.

Hey Im not evangelical, lol. Believe what you want.

And this should be noticed when discussing these issues just by "are we going to war or not". The US has had incidents with Iran, yet typically the US will launch attacks only at far weaker countries. With stronger opponents the issue is about the scale of the response where the only response isn't to attack Iran. — ssu

I'd say generally you are right, but the USA does not have a monolithic opinion, even in its government. There are war hawks who are looking for war, and they jump on these opportunities for justification of their opinions.

Notably not even the Japanese or the ship's own crew agree with the USA narrative on this story.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/japanese-ship-owner-contradicts-us-account-of-how-tanker-was-attacked/2019/06/14/7ea347d0-8eba-11e9-b6f4-033356502dce_story.html

That has not stopped 'America' from declaring it Iran's fault.

American law and natural law has never been used as an impediment for any American policy decision — Hanover

Generally, no. America does not even teach the natural law which led to its foundation any more because it requires a belief in God in order to be rational. You have to go to Europe to learn that.

There's a couple of exceptions which led to civil war and women getting the vote where natural law led to constitutional amendments.

Beyond that, no, Americans are not keen on natural law because it so sometimes contradicts decisions about constitutional law made in the last century, and according to concepts of legal positivism, that is legally heretical. Attorneys are not permitted to consider that American law is sometimes wrong. So that's a second reason they don't teach it.

From another country's perspective, however, the USA is required to uphold the natural law it used as justification to revolt against the British, or it loses the authority to rule.

The only discriminating factor you get in the US is an educational achievement. — Wallows

While that might have had some truth in the past, the educated are now dismissed as 'elitist' unless they also have money.

They are so heavily vested in their own power to kill, they don't make distinctions like you or me. They are the result of a natural selection process for ruthlessness. You can't apply normal motives to them. They don't think that way and are incapable of thinking any other way. If they had any normal ideas of morality and ethics like other people, they would have committed suicide a long time ago in horror of their own deeds. This goes way back before the torture at abu'graib. Its ingrained. They aren't really human beings like the rest of us. They are the kids who pulled legs off insects to see what they'd do, and laughed when their friends stuck nerd's heads in toilet bowls, they took up killing wild animals for sport, and now they are grown up, they've proven to be the ideal candidates to run war machines. They are groomed for it, they exalt in it, and that's what they live for.

What should they do to avoid war? — Mephist

They don't want to avoid war. They do everything they can to start one. They don't have ethical beliefs like you or me. They think themselves naturally superior to other people and have a right to kill them for their personal benefit, like slaughtering animals. They manipulate other people with ideals, but they don't believe in them themselves except perhaps for patriotism, and even then, if they thought the USA could lose they'd probably switch sides.

They reach a point of conviction where they don't make distinctions like you think, and frequently are involved in profit making through third parties which they don't believe create any ethical conflict, because they are so heavily vested in killing people, it all just appears normal to them.

Now I think we'll be lucky to make it through a few centuries of global warming. — Bitter Crank

You do have a point there. Most people confuse Marx with Engels and Lenin. Marx was more of a theoretician. Engels and Lenin were more practical. I drew this about Marx's thought as pictures are easier to understand.

yes. They are arms dealers. They just sold 32 F35s to Poland.

Perhaps only if Iran does not do what they want. — Fooloso4

It doesn't matter what Iran does any more. Whatever Iran does they will say its not enough. That's been Iran's complaint.

They are vested in the profit yielded from selling the means to kill people.

have a simple question: why do Bolton and Pompeo want a war with Iran ? — Mephist

Because they want to kill people for their personal advantage. War has two steps: justification and invocation. The justification rarely has anything to do with individuals' real reasons for declaring war. Invocation is the point where the war mongers declare 'all other options are exhausted, we have no choice but to attack the evil empire.'

But, here's the thing that you or Marx missed out on. Namely, that advancements in technology and resulting productivity increases via automation, AI, and the rest would cause the same luxurious lifestyle of the bourgeoisie, to be available even with the income of a proletariat worker, given enough time and possibly credit... So, essentially this renders class struggles as irrelevant. This has been happening for a great while already. — Wallows

While that's sometimes claimed, that's not quite what Marx thought, and most of the misunderstanding of Marx is due to the same problem, a misinterpretation of the word 'proletariat'

This was a very old concept, since Roman times in fact, of a class of people who have rights to vote in a democracy but who are illiterate. It is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie to limit education, and therefore over time the class of illiterate increases until its decisions dominate the republic. The proletariat are easy to manipulate, and therefore do not vote in their favor. Some may argue that the process is well underway in the USA, perhaps for good reason.

there is a difference between constitutional rights and natural rights.

The declaration of independence states that the british violated natural rights, and therefore no longer had authority to rule. The justification has nothing to do with constitutional rights.

You'd have to tell me what appears unclear about the statement.

I'm confused as to why a non-resident has standing to object to the entry requirements of a foreign sovereign. — Hanover

The problem with the sovereign nation argument is that the USA itself rebelled against a sovereign nation. The USA states that it was justified to do so, because the British had violated the natural rights of its citizens here. As such, by not extending natural rights to those who visit the country undermines its government's authority to rule, as well as its moral authority to judge the actions of other nations.

Well, I agree it would be nice, but the problems of the two party system is that it redefines itself until it doesn't fairly represent the people, as I said was indicated by Aristotle as an inescapable flaw with government based on a voting majority.

With regard to votes, [Aristotle's] debate centers on the benefit of oligarchy versus equality for all, the latter of which is of course, appears controlled by the poor, because there are always more of them. And I will try to summarize it because it is quite long. If you have say 2 rich and 4 poor voting equally, one of the poor quickly realizes they can be more powerful by voting with the rich. If there 2 rich and 6 poor, the poor realize they can split in two and each group can partner either with the rich group or the other poor group to win. And the latter example can collapse into the first, because there 1 person realizes, again, he can switch groups to make a 4:4 split. So what naturally evolves is a system where the rich and poor have equal power decided by a tiny swing group, or even a single person.

And INF treaty is not about if nuclear weapons are WMD's or not — ssu

that's the problem. I've repeated the argument half a dozen times, but you want to spittle on irrelevant details.

There is no INF. There's no point arguing about what the INF treaty says because there isn't one. The INF is broke, all say it has been for years, there is no plan to make new treaties at all. And MAD no longer works to stop nuclear weapons. It may stop massive retaliation still, but it no longer stops nuclear weapons.

Please try reading correctly the articles. No aircraft carrier is carrying any strategic bombers, especially something as big as a B-52. — ssu

Aircraft carriers dont just carry aircraft they can fly. During the Gulf was they carried road pavers, which are much larger than B52s. We dont know what they carry, and we dont know where nuclear bombs actually are. All we know is that one of the B52s landed in Qatar and there is a state visit next week.

And this has got simply stupid. I am not bothering discussing whether there will be a new INF at the UN.

it is a concept and provides great use in the physical world and serves as a talking point for much theological debate. — Richard B

Not really. S. says, 'if one connects a voltmeter across a battery, the voltmeter displays a result.' He claims this is physiological observation, and therefore not causal.

However, if one describes it as a phenomenon of science it does become a causal statement. For example, one can say a battery provides power because its capacitative charge provides a potential difference across its poles.

Or one can say a battery provides power because it is a gift from the god Mercury.

They are both causal statements. The first is empirically demonstrable, and the second is hermeneutically understood. S. does not define a significant difference between such causal relationships.

The USS Aircraft Carrier Lincoln is carrying some B52s from Shanahan's nuclear exercise last month. It was meant to be in Croatia, but suddenly appeared in the Red Sea. One of the B52s landed in Qatar.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/05/11/patriot-missiles-and-an-amphibious-transport-ship-sent-to-middle-east-to-deter-iran/

Today, the White House announced Qatar's emir would be visiting the USA.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/06/donald-trump-host-qatar-emir-white-house-gulf-tensions-190607194633054.html

Won't be used, will stop, we would be told, won't happen. — ssu

We will be told, but the argument that some nuclear devices are not WMDs hasnt been presented to the United Nations yet, because there weren't any viable candidate devices before. I would guess it will be raised in confidential August meetings of the Security Council, before it reaches the general assembly floor, some time between Labor Day and MLK day.

It is known from public statements that such tactical attacks with nuclear bunker busters have the support of the USA general in charge of the nuclear arsenal, Hyten, as well as NSA Advisor, Bolton. The Defense Secretary, Mattis, was against the proposal but he was fired and physically left office May 1st. The Acting Defense Secretary, Shanahan, has made no public statement, but since he just flew the largest nuclear test mission since the 1950s in his first month of office, one must assume he is part of the cabal.

We don't know where Acting Defense Minster Shanahan is at the moment, but we know he is in this plane designed to remain operational after the start of a nuclear war. It has three decks, a crew of up to 112, 18 bunks, six bathrooms, a galley, briefing room, conference room, battle staff work area, executive quarters, and 63 satellite dishes. https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/29/us-military-doomsday-plane-can-withstand-aftermath-of-nuclear-blast.html



So the reclassification will definitely be reaching the UN Security Council soon, but probably not until August. That's the way it is is now.

A devotee of Schopenhauer, I imagine, would make 3 points.


1) You cannot apply our notions of causality beyond physical reality.

2) We only know our experience inside time and space, so how could we know this “God” beyond everything we know ?


3) We cannot know the noumena behind phenomena. — Jonathan McCormack

First I am not an expert on S. But I think the proper response is epistemological. One cannot know one way or the other. What S. says neither proves not disproves the existence of higher spiritual forces. What remains is belief. His criticism of causality equally applies to his own belief that human endeavor is futile in the face of apathetic yet evil forces.

Generally people say that Kant acknowledges the impetus to argue teleologically exists. Schopenhauer is adamant that all such cases are wrong, but Kant did not attempt to argue it rationally. he claimed it was an aesthetic judgment, and thus independent of pure reason.

What I take Schopenhauer's philosophy to mean (and also Kant's) is that there is an irreducibly subjective pole in every act of knowledge — Wayfarer

Well that is something neither of them really wanted to acknowledge. kant's argument from intelligent design similarly has a subjective element which remains a problem for all acts of induction from the particular to the general case.

olts divided by ohms do not mean pretty much anything. — Alan

The way it was described to me when I was 14 was that volts is a measure of potential difference, caused by there being more electrons on one side than the other of an obstruction to electron movement. Current is movement of the electrons, like water finding a level, electrons flow through conductors until there is an equal distribution of them. Resistance is a measure of the amount of obstruction to current flow, and amperes are a measure of the amount of current. Typically the potential difference is maintained capacatively in direct-current applications.

To avoid the need for coefficients, the three measures are scaled to provide a direct multiplicative relationship, that is, volts are the direct mathematical product of amps and ohms. Also, the power, watts, is a product of volts and amps. So you only need to know two of the quantities to deduce the other two.

So to answer your question, they are different things with a different mathematical relationship. the equivalent to apples would be if you had 8 batteries, or 8 resistors, and divided them among two people.

Nukes are a waste of money, what you need is boots on the ground. — Sculptor

Funny. Thats what Macarthur said.

Whatever one thinks of the stupidity of war, Mattis was right to say there hasn't been anything like WW2 since Nagasaki, and its probably due to fears of escalation.

MAD has worked a long time, and it still works somewhat to stop escalation, but with the division of nuclear weapons into those which are and are not WMDs, MAD no longer prevents the use of nuclear weapons as it did in previous years. It's been known this division would occur for some ti me, and a number of people have tried to stop it, using the slippery slope argument, but they didnt stop it, and this year, its here.

What now exists is a massive public opinion that nuclear weapons wont be used because they havent been, so why even consider it. So it will be a bit of shock to people over the next year when the debate over which nuclear weapons might not be WMDs suddenly appears in the United Nations.

And the UN will have the debate, as soon as the USA has nuclear weapons which might not be WMDs. It's an inevitable debate, but so far, there's been no point starting it at the public level because there weren't any. This year, there are. There's about 200 of these old bombs that will be converted into nuclear bunker busters, mostly in Turkey now, and the first ones are scheduled in September.

The argument is first going to be how directed and confined the nuclear blast needs to be, so as not to be WMDs. Currently the B61-12 is not earth burrowing like the B61-11, and only has a directional blast from the surface. but the B61-11 is too heavy for F35s and B2s, and is not accurate from B52s. So there may be a reprieve, because the B61-11 currently does not have the new GPS-linked guidance tail assembly, which the B61-12 will have in September. The deployment of 6 B52s from the UK in April for 5,000 miles of flight testing probably included some shell drops to test accuracy, and the news we hear about N Korea subsequent to Trump's return from the UK is probably based on their success.

So far, today, there was a Pentagon document which suddenly appeared calling N Korea a 'rogue state,' and Trump is avoiding real issues with his usual cloud of nasty remarks.

That's the first real UN debate on nuclear weapons this year. .