What they need? Sure. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.

Freedom of speech, and the rest. And the reasonable assurance all of the aforementioned will be protected.

A person is a person. In such a diverse nation especially there is no 'title' or 'nationality' to consider. What someone would 'need' here would be no different than what someone needs anywhere.

Discernment between needs and wants is a non-issue. Not to say there aren't unique, circumstantial needs as far as societies go from country to country. It comes down to reasonable belief someone will either maintain or perhaps even improve the ways that one has become accustomed to. And address grievances. Not much more to it then that. Once the needs are addressed, the wants that are independent of necessity can be focused on. The greater the claims the higher the chance you'll be favorable. Unforrunately or not it pragmatically comes down to ensuring the majority is taken care of and content enough to continue to participate first.

As far as politicians being in an impossible position. Depends on concern and commitment. With none, especially if one has made sufficient amounts of money, they likely will either continue to pursue or at minimum work to keep up appearances they are attempting to, enact the laws and will of their constituency that elected them. If they do however... probably. Not impossible. Just atrociously agonizing. Actually, not entirely. They are likely duly elected representatives who ran on ideas they presumably believed and whatever majority electorate that ran with or voted for them would continue to support and admire them even (or sometimes especially) on failure. Essentially all they have to do is ensure their voting majority is satisfied enough either by action or attempt of action. There is no "king", other than the satisfied and socially/politically active/involved citizen.

If a cause is forced is it not merely an effect of a greater cause? Perhaps that's your point.

What, in a sentence or two (or more, this is complex or at least unclear to me- not including examples), is a (or the) creator? What is the creation?

So to create or not to create? If this creator does create is it not its effect? If it doesnt create isn't this an effect (or lack of, yet still able to be referenced say if an architect does not create a dam he was supposed to and a low lying town becomes flooded) this effect or creation as well?

So essentially any number would not refer to anything either? If so what does zero refer to? What differentiates 1 from 0?

Ah, so cause and effect? The creator of an effect is the cause and its effect is the creation. Sounds about right.

They're gonna want a bit more than that, friend. I know I did.

Pragmatically speaking I've chosen to, for sake of debate including all, assign the 'Creator' to be one of the following possibilities, meaning there is no other possibility than the following two. Either as an entity, as we believe. Or as the process of millions of years of random, meaningless evolution. It has to be one of these and so use of the word 'Creator' can now be used in any argument regardless of the views of its audience.

Wants are not needs and unless needs are met first there is no want. There is death.

States do/did address some of the diversity/polarity of desire. You can dress like a clown, act like a dog, and speak ill of anything and everything that was once important in a state that has, and I don't want to name any, certain political/social views as widespread and normal. If you don't like it, you can move to another state. Maybe in this state you are expected to dress well, behave well, speak politely, and honor spirituality/Godly pursuits. Both societies being ingrained and widespread enough where each is the respective norm and those outside of it will not be liked or shunned. And so you can move to a different state more accommodating to whatever society is ideal to you.

Naturally the laws are the same. Anyone can live anywhere and be afforded equal opportunity. But shouldn't expect that localized society to change to accommodate their desires when there are other locations that can.

Hey... that's not a word. :grimace:

Through a series of observations and experiences I've gotten to know vividly and all too well.

Also I keep getting these bills every month or so with my name on them. If someone else acknowledges my existence that's good enough for me.

Ah. My guess was 'what' as a concept along the lines of who, when, where, and how.

So 'what' would not be the answer to that question rather what would be a question where 'what' is the answer.

So what I thought was the answer would be a referenced question though not asked as one therefore a statement. Which would be...



Would this not also be correct? :D

Perhaps by a 1 to 1 basis in the mind meaning said proposed fact ie. 'the water is hot' corresponds to one or more things that can be proven. The water is 150 degrees farenheit. Steam is beginning to rise from the water. I stick my hand in it for more than a few seconds it will be very uncomfortable. Etc? The statement 'the water is hot' is therefore a fact not an opinion. Whereas 'the water is too hot' or 'not hot enough' may be the opposite.

Hm?

If a philosophy is "proven" does it not graduate into the field of science?

If apealing to authority to support a position (presumably referencing a fact or at least a hypothesis vs. a random opinion) is not rubbish as in is "true", how exactly would doing the same thing to refute or throw into question an opposing idea be "false"?

Basically this. Born meaning with the brain of an infant. There'd be no way to progress. Hence a controversial political arguement I seek to avoid.

Now as an adult... could be different. Not to say better. By far. Not hard to imagine really. Just casually lay in bed and keep your eyes closed for a few hours. Of course, you couldn't say anything. Or hear anyone. Sounds like a future dystopian jail honestly.

Got it. Hey I just ate a few baby chicken embryos a few hours ago. Shoot I don't think there's an animal I haven't ate. Except for the cool ones of course. Bear, wolf, lion, cats and dogs, etc.

For the sake of debate however. We'd consider hamsters to be 'low' on said spectrum right? Did you know they can learn their name and even respond to it? I'll never forget.. (actually this is the first time I recall it) I was I don't know how old, couldn't have been much more than 10. Was able to buy two hamsters. Plus the cage, bedding, feed, all that. I forget if they were both male or both female or one of each but, apparently they weren't supposed to be caged together. Long story short one day I woke up and couldn't see the other one. Found him in the corner of the thing with a wound on his underside alive but just laying there. Honestly to this day I couldn't tell you who was more traumatized.

Pointless story I guess but a diehard biologist wouldn't discount the possibility of alien life. If this is so. You tell me. Do you think we'd be viewed much higher than a hamster on this 'spectrum' of yours?

Hey what's up. Kind of curious about what the root argument(s) is/are at this point as far as the recent posts.

I've checked the quotes but still kinda foggy.

Animals fear to die/feel emotion, no they don't, what does it matter they're animals, etc?

Two opposing opinions. Not a big deal?

Interesting. Never heard of metaethics before. :)

Will have to look into that.

Of course. However the best help is to ensure one can not only help themselves but need not ask, out of necessity that is. What I mean is if this is for some academic application, the wisest pieces of wisdom can be shared here, and used, probably to great success and satisfaction or even amazement of your peers and teacher. But. If you are ever questioned solo, we will not be around to guide you. Worse, if you get some degree from this alone and people depend on you for something important, what service is that to what is right. But I'm probably just rambling.

Now then. We seem to have brought up two unique, yet related premises. The question of whether or not submitting to (following) duty is equivalent to blind obedience and whether or not respecting (admiring, appreciating, or understanding) and following laws is also equivalent to blind obedience. Which one of these is the root concept you're interested about? Both? I suppose the latter is a derivative of the former.

First let's define the shared, single property between the two. Blind obedience. Simple, right? You follow or obey someone or something, except -and this is what makes it 'blind'- withholding just about any and all possible concern, discern, discretion, or skepticism. Moral or otherwise. Like a robot.

Respect is something deep and meaningful. It's not just saying the word itself or doing what you have to do because you have to. It's an intimate understanding of the importance of something you value. Whereas merely following the law is just doing something you have to do so you don't get in trouble.

Following something you respect is probably not blind obedience.

I'd continue on but want to see what you have to say and contribute before doing so.

Just a note, friend. Words between languages are not 100% equivalent. They overlap but not 100%. Things may get (or possibly have been) lost in translation. It's important we discuss further to ensure what I wrote was perceived correctly. What is your first language? Just curious.

Are you just writing a term paper or something? Class project?

Perhaps if you would elaborate a bit more on.. anything. Any word or concept you're asking about aside from just reversing it and throwing in a word or two in between. Perhaps someone will oblige to lead you in the right direction. ;)

Anyone or anything can be discredited for reasons other than being discreditable.

I could be wrong 10,000 times but if I happen to be right about something, is it any less true? Perceptively, yes. Objectively...?

Trusting authority is a huge part of research. Have you or anyone reading ever seen an electron? A black hole? A tardigrade? Have an absolute, meticulous understanding of the carbon dating process ensuring its reliable? Probably not. And yet.

'Submitting to duty', hopefully, implies willful participation in something you took the time to understand. Or at least get the gist of.

Democracy kind of throws in a wrench into the works as far as the whole laws not being fair thing. If enough people are moved to act, any policy can be changed. Name one law that is fair for some but not for others.

Not necessarily. Though it easily can be.

We have a mind and an infinitely complex world and universe to perceive.

It's good to be grounded in something. Be it theism or atheism. If that footing is sure, what is the harm in logically debate or discovery?

Not a place for tyrannical "thumping" or virtual death threats sure but surely such fundamentally broad and incredibly longstanding concepts have their avenues of debate. If you must, think of it like debating Hansel and Gretel, you're not debating the accuracy so much as just about anything else about the premise, what it implies, or its implication on society.

Crap I think I got it. Will check back on this thread tomorrow. As inactive as the 'lounge' is.

Curious there are no threads posted here in the entirety of PF that cannot be seen either in 'All Discussions' or 'The Lounge' are there?

You may want to delete that hint btw. It was pretty good.

'Nother hint pls.

Does the topic title relate to the answer?

Definitely a good one.

I get it!! Doesnt that mean Sir2u was right? Punctuation marks do matter. Take the case of some guy or whatever. He declared "Pardon Impossible. To be sent to Siberia!" however the scribe wrote it as "Pardon, Impossible To be sent to Siberia!". As one example.

"I found my old toy cabinet but discovered there was only a toy cab in it."

Eh. I guess technically that would be 10 points but between the fact it's basically the base word split and mostly.. I forget what you call those. Pronouns or something? I, me, you, it, etc. Whatever those are.

Say 5 points

What if there was only one answer ever given to it at any point in time. It would be a question without an answer wouldn't it?

The answer to a contextless supplementary followup question is either a question or a statement. Any of the following.

What question? Or what are you talking about?
I don't know (what question you mean). Or I don't know what you're talking about.

The person does not know what you're talking about, hence any of the following would be correct or true.

Isn't 'shooting someone to death' outside of self defense, often only if your life is in imminent danger as in you yourself would be killed or grievously injured if said self defense was not performed, murder? Castle Doctrine or being in Texas (shooting a fleeing robber), aside.

The higher charge takes precedence does it not? Defending your Life when confronted with another who is either trying to take It or put It in an unreasonable circumstance where it either is or seems that it is to be taken (pulling a knife on you in a threatening manner, aka a death threat), outside of a verbal or other interaction you started ie. you're just standing there minding your own business saying nothing and some guy comes up and pulls out a knife and "charges at you". That's infringing on the main Constitution al rights themselves. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness. I agree when someone violates the Constitutional rights of another they invalidate theirs. That's the point.

Anything. You didn't say it had to be correct.

Ask a question and see who gets angry. Rush them. They probably have a gun on them.

That or fake a seizure or something and if you can do so with your eyes open, look for an item or opportunity to seize and take it.

Well first a feeling of dread based on physical signs is hardly "living in a different reality". Perhaps superstitious and a bit old fashioned, humorous even. Anyone thinking anything beyond that is an early warning sign of facism come to think of it. Highly suspect.

That is to say, if he's in good health, especially if intelligent and coherent. And friendly above all. :D

Beyond that could be something, could be nothing. Especially if it's all behind him so to speak. You could say even a broken clock is right twice a day. Or point to the facts prophets (or prophecies) have been part of human society since the beginning of human history.

That said, could've been psychosomatic. Ate something bad. Naturally the brain feels awry. Something happened. As they always do. Not a big deal. Who could say.

I respect and understand the value of currency. From metal coins to paper notes. Prevents us from having to at best rely on verbal promises or at worst from committing various degrees of heinous savagery in order to have something to eat or a place to rest. Not to say it eliminates the latter, rather after obtaining the currency no further action is mandated as far as the physical wellbeing of the original possessor. Not like that stops some people.

As far as cryptocurrency goes is it not, and please correct me if I'm wrong at any point, just a bunch of 1's and 0's? Could someone not hypothetically do something along the lines of '-regedit item "cryptocurrency" property "amount" value "9999999999999"' and disable the 'authcodecheck' property on the receiving end to 0. Suddenly, I'm a trillionaire. Give me your mansion. Lol.

So if not exchanged the value is held on the physical computer or some kind of online account?

What if the power grid is down for an unforeseeable time. Things start to go bad and some guy has a bunker and a mob of hungry rioters is seen in the distance. Two guys come up to you. One waving a computer harddrive in your face saying this is worth a million dollars in said currency, and happens to be telling the truth, saying he will give you 90% of it to take him in. And another guy who has a half-eaten cheeseburger and a few packets of croutons, who also knows how to fish, and says he'll split half of it with you to do the same. You only have room for one. Who do you take in?

Perhaps much of it, perhaps none at all. Maybe that's the point. To understand what is and what isn't based on what holds water so to speak. Early philosophy was much more metaphysical. Perhaps random ideas by an individual becomes shared belief (morality) which becomes codified law (the state demanding buildings be fire safe) which becomes scientific law (principles of flammability). Perhaps 'gods' were early concepts of natural forces and their 'commandments' were early understandings of how they worked.

What would be indubitable to me about philosophy, that is to say what can be extrapolated from it, is that we all have different opinions, some of which benefit us as a society and some which do not, the former generally being gravitated toward and perhaps becoming more. Myths being residual and useful proof of this. Remnants or ghosts of the early human process of progress. Take the 'Japanese bathroom demon' from the 'mythical creatures' thread. It clearly had a purpose. Back then sanitation was likely poor and an unkept bathroom could be lethal. If you either appease the 'entity' say by incense or sprinkling something of value (that likely had antibacterial or disinfectant qualities) or banish it by in this case simply cleaning it, 'it' would leave and you would be safe as opposed to possibly getting sick, by what would presumably at that time be said entity. Makes sense.

Some would argue good and bad are relative terms.

If you have a gang of five ne'er-do-wells who are in the process of robbing you and four of them want to kill you, the one who just wants to beat you up a little is 'the good person'.

Nature vs. nurture. There are selfless people out there who would literally suffer and die before they harm another. They are growing increasingly uncommon but not quite 'mythical'. Yet at least. :D

Take devout monks or nuns. Or any what you'd call 'good person'. Its not that they don't feel or contemplate the same ideas and desires most do rather they are content in not acting on them. It's an open debate. Like I said nature vs. nurture, monkey see monkey do, see no evil speak no evil do no evil. The facts are simply not available.

Where would we be as a species, allegedly, if one didn't notice patterns like that or things that 'fit together'? One could imagine many discoveries and inventions were spurred by the observation of something occurring in ones environment of no relation to the observer. Now these examples are probably not how the following were conceived but perhaps they were at least in isolated cases or societies. Watching a bird make its nest or a beaver make a dam could've influenced primitive housing. Seeing a tree branch fall on an unfortunate deer, stunning it, may have influenced early blunt weapons. Coming across a charred bird or bear from a recent wildfire and noticing it was oddly aromatic and had the inexplicable power to make your mouth water may have influenced early cooking. As a few examples.

More specifically the idea of finding answers by environmental factors sounds a bit like divination in my opinion. It's usually more doing something that can produce two or more results and going by that ie. taking two identical twigs or branches and assigning a unique choice to each, placing the tip of each in a fire just until ignition, then seeing which one extinguishes itself first. Or today, flipping a coin. Kind of like how if someone was about to rob a house out of necessity, knowing it's wrong, and upon touching the handle hearing thunder rumbling or a loud thunder strike and deciding not to. Or the inverse, wondering if they should go and see if a neighbor who always helped them needs help and seeing the sun shine through the clouds after an overcast day.

It is human nature to find meaning in the otherwise meaningless, to create order out of chaos. The phenomenon of pareidolia is a prime example.

Dang. You didn't just make that page did you? XD

Wow. That's.. pretty neat. Naturally I plan to be a subscriber as I love this site but of course seeing as the majority of repeat posters here are.. very intelligent, so one could assume the admin is as well, there should be no shortage that is to say urgency for funding.

Nevertheless I'm impressed and have to double check whatever I said that are rules but, yeah. Dang.

So is a bartender's. He could've had ten times that. A hundred even. Doesn't mean he ever loved or was loved back. Words are words and gestures are gestures. You know that.

Edit: As far as the bartender analogy I meant to suggest presence of people doesn't always equate social fulfillment or absence of lonliness. Especially for a great mind. Not to say I know a thing about you personally just from what few posts of yours I've read in my short time here they've always been rather intelligent.

It kind of also has to be coherent.

I suppose that quote wasn't. Basically doing the thing that I said is worth 10 points but instead of a single use it has to be two, the second one being different (uses of?) words but still sounding the same as the base word and first use. Basically a total of three homophones, one being a single base word, and two being three words each all verbally identical when pronounced. I literally can't even think of any possible examples. Hence the wager. :D

So like an animal, an unintelligent person, or someone gripped by psychosis.

Hey if any of these things are 'yourself' forgetting sounds like a service to just about everybody. Can be argued robbing someone wealthier than you to eat or teaching an overly trusting person the value of skepticism is not without it's own morals but anything beyond that is depravity. Meanwhile when they end up in prison who pays an average of 50 grand a year to house and feed them and just about any surgery they need some that would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars? The law-abiding taxpayers of course. So let's not act like there's some sort of macho independence factor in degenerate criminality. The lions made things so much simpler.

Confirmation bias? Say if you or I became fixated with a common object say blue jeans or red cars, we'd suddenly begin to notice them more. There is a very little chance all of a sudden random people you've never met are going to suddenly start wearing blue jeans or drive red cars more often, it is a perception. The book "Seeing Red Cars" talks about this and even gives it a positive spin.