Take them to court, impose sanctions, anything is better than nothing. Otherwise the regime will think that it is untouchable and this can only make matters worse IMO. — Apollodorus

I doubt that would be effective, but sure. I have no objection. I'll go along with that if you'll go along with mandatory vaccination.

I moved this over from the "A Gentleman: to be or not to be, and when" thread because I don't think it belongs there.

True. But those that are vaccinated are supposed to be protected? — Apollodorus

The primary reason why vaccination is required in the schools is to prevent the spread to other children and teachers. Epidemics of measles, mumps, diphtheria, whooping cough, etc. have almost disappeared.

And I don't see why China should get away with it when that is where the problem originated. — Apollodorus

I don't know what "get away with it" means in this context. What do you suggest we do?

If someone has to 'make sure' of it, it wasn't a consequence was it, prior to the making sure?

The consequences of our actions are usually considered to be those things which result from them without someone having to intervene to make it so. — Isaac

The consequence I'm talking about is the possible infection of other people, which result from failure to be vaccinated whether or not someone makes sure. Any further discussion in this vein probably belongs on the Corona virus thread. I probably shouldn't have stuck my nose in. How many times have I said that?

Good point. There seems to be a tendency to grant or deny the right to bodily autonomy in line with our political agendas. — Apollodorus

There is a long history of requiring vaccination before someone can participate in public life. The best example is the requirement that children be vaccinated against childhood diseases before they can attend school. All fifty states in the US have such requirements. These are not controversial or politically divisive requirements.

Bodily autonomy is good. Stand up for your rights but don't whine when your public access is restricted. It's not punishment, it is making sure that you face the consequences of your own behavior.

If you willfully participate in the ostracization of people for exercising their inalienable right to bodily autonomy, you were never a gentleman to begin with. — Tzeentch

I have no problem with you refusing to get vaccinated as long as you have no problem with being restricted in your behavior so that other people won't be infected.

IE, "a priori knowledge" is an idiomatic expression and is only a guide to the concept rather than a literal description of it. — RussellA

This post is not relevant to the discussion we are having on this thread. What's up with that?

I only pointed out that you are a supporter of a system with oligarchic qualities that is labeled "Democracy". Its qualities are oligarchic because as the etymology of the word states "ολίγοι άρχουν/διοικούν" - only few govern. — Nickolasgaspar

There are many things wrong with American government, whatever you call it. I won't argue with that. When I say I am a supporter of democracy, I mean as it is now constituted in the US and in many western countries, imperfect as it is. I don't know what more I can say.

Like T Clark, I am not a gentleman. — Bitter Crank

Hey! I am significantly less a gentleman than you are.

Authority figures are telling to Americans that they are free and the greatest nation in the world, but they don't present them marks that are crucial for this evaluation and most importantly they don't compare them to other countries. — Nickolasgaspar

I'm not arguing against your position. As I've said, you are trying to participate in a different discussion than I am. For me, this is not the place to have the discussion you want to have.

The following systems that those definitions describes drifted from the meaning and etymology of the word. They are NO longer described by this label. — Nickolasgaspar

Demo and cracy refer to specific qualities and standards that aren't met by the following regimes. — Nickolasgaspar

That's not the way language works. Words "drift from the meaning and etymology of the word" all the time. You may not like it, but "democracy" means something different now and it meant something different when the US Constitution was written. If you won't accept the standard meaning of the word and the meaning we are applying in this discussion, there's not much we can talk about.

Seriously...are the extremes the only choice here? lol Are we...five year olds or its just our arguments! — Nickolasgaspar

You are the one who is refusing to participate in this discussion under the standard meanings of the words we have been using.

If you're going to change the rules, I don't want to play.

Words have common usages and if the system they "describe" doesn't agree with the accepted meaning then we should either change the system( if we want it) or the label. — Nickolasgaspar

As I noted before, your usage of the word "democracy" is not consistent with its currently accepted meaning or its meaning when the Constitution was written.

This is an interesting conversation! You declare yourself a "cheerleader for democracy" but you reject the main premise of the system? — Nickolasgaspar

Simple majority rule is not "the main premise of the system."

I would be interested to hear your definition of democracy! — Nickolasgaspar

Government of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Notice - it doesn't say anything about majority rule or disallowing representative democracy.

Well by definition Δήμος=demo=commune & κρατία=cracy=ruling means that the members of a community rule(take decisions). So the majority should rule in a democratic system and voting should always take place at taking decisions...not electing representatives. — Nickolasgaspar

Here are a some definitions of "democracy" from the web:

• A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.
• Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule'[1]) is a form of government in which the people have the authority to deliberate and decide legislation ("direct democracy"), or to choose governing officials to do so ("representative democracy").
• A form of government in which people choose leaders by voting.

It doesn't matter what the original meaning of the word was or how the Athenian system worked. Back then, only male citizens could vote. Generally that meant men who owned property. Are you suggesting we go back to that? It also says nothing about majority ruling.

My children are all at least 30 years old now, but I remember reading to them when they were little. There are a lot of crap children's books out there and, if they like the story or the pictures, you might end up reading it over and over. I never got tired of this poem and the book with pictures it was published in. I buy the book as the first gift I give to all first children. I see it as a gift for the parents at least as much as the child.

I love this poem for all those reasons, and also because it's wonderful.

Goodnight Moon by Margaret Wise Brown

In the great green room
There was a telephone
And a red balloon
And a picture of
The cow jumping over the moon
And there were three little bears sitting on chairs
And two little kittens
And a pair of mittens
And a little toy house
And a young mouse
And a comb and a brush and a bowl full of mush
And a quiet old lady who was whispering “hush”
Goodnight room
Goodnight moon
Goodnight cow jumping over the moon
Goodnight light
And the red balloon
Goodnight bears
Goodnight chairs
Goodnight kittens
And goodnight mittens
Goodnight clocks
And goodnight socks
Goodnight little house
And goodnight mouse
Goodnight comb
And goodnight brush
Goodnight nobody
Goodnight mush
And goodnight to the old lady whispering “hush”
Goodnight stars
Goodnight air
Good night noises everywhere

But you are a gentleman, good Sir. — praxis

I'm brilliant, articulate, modest, amusing, deeply insightful, and, generally, right. But I am not a gentleman.

A little refresher course for all us gents. — praxis

Two thoughts. 1) What makes you think I want to be a gentleman? 2) If I were going to be one, I'd rather be one like Larry, Moe, and [Stooge name here] than whomever Tim Woods and 180 Proof are talking about.

The bills could still be drafted by professional politicians, and the questions then put to the electorate electronically. The same question is not to be put before the electorate again within x years unless the legislature votes that it should be, or in the alternative upon a supermajority of the electorate. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I say it would be a disaster. You disagree. Let's leave it at that.

Whether there is good reason to have the electoral college voting system is another question. It is clearly undemocratic to appoint a president when the majority voted for his opponent. — Down The Rabbit Hole

As I noted, that fact that a system is not strictly majority rule does not mean it is not democratic.

The more persons that have choice over their ruler, and the laws that govern them, the more democracy. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I disagree.

I'm no cheerleader for democracy. — Down The Rabbit Hole

I am.

@tim wood @180 Proof

Why do I think of this whenever I read either one of you post about "gentlemen."

Yes, these things can enrich one's appreciation afterwards, but as you have noted, first comes the love. I will try to find more new poems for you to love, as time goes by. Have you read much Tennyson, or Emily Dickinson? — Michael Zwingli

Not much Tennyson. A bit of Dickinson. I remember writing an essay about one of here poems in 11th grade English. I like her ok. Pick one of hers you like and we can have some more fun.

Well, what did you mean by:

They have a lot of customers here and they need to be here to serve them. They won't be able to escape
— T Clark — frank

You're talking about where the items being sold come from. I'm talking about where the customers are. Amazon can't get out of the reach of the US government as long as they're selling here. A lot of American companies get more trouble from the EU than they do here. Ditto with China.

I agree. As you seem taken with the poem, I just wanted to discuss a couple of the things that I have noticed about it. There is a certain usual process of appreciation that happens with me when I initially read a fine poem. At first blush, I feel a general sense of profundity and awe the basis of which I cannot always quite discern. With subsequent readings, though, often begin to notice the poetic devices used in the creation of something special. — Michael Zwingli

I wasn't finding fault with the process you and I are going through. I've really enjoyed it. I just always want to make sure I keep my eye on the experience of poetry rather than the interpretation. As you've noted, the kinds of things you and I are talking about can deepen the experience. Most of the poetry interpretation I've read is baloney.

Take a closer look at where your consumables were manufactured. I think you'll find that most of it wasn't here — frank

I don't see how that contradicts my point.

the US economy revolves around Wall St., not manufacturing. — frank

Yes. It strikes me that making the financial industry the heart of the economy has been disastrous. It highlights how things are distorted when pure profit is the motive.

of course, is a narrative statement recognizing the "futility" of the preceding argument, tying the entire achievement to it's title. — Michael Zwingli

This is not an argument against anything you've written about the poem, or what I've written for that matter - I loved the poem before I thought about it. Before I went back and thought about your comments and formulated mine. The explication was interesting and helped me think about language and poetry in general, but I loved the poem first.

I used this phrase in the "Definition of Art" thread. It's sometimes used to describe country music. I don't know if you're familiar with it - Three chords and the truth. You don't necessarily need sophistication to speak from the heart.

Dictionary definitions generally agree that aesthetic as a noun means a set of principles governing the idea of beauty, such as "modernist aesthetics" and beauty as a noun means qualities such as shape, colour, sound in a person or thing that gives pleasure to the senses. — RussellA

That definition is not inconsistent with my meaning. The definition said "beauty," not "prettiness" or "pleasurableness."

The trick is, can you explain to me in words the subjective experience of the colour ultraviolet ! — RussellA

I think I could, but not just in words. It would have to be related to how the person uses their other senses. I can imagine what a bat's echolocation might be like. If I could talk to one, I could probably get a better feel for it. Never as good as a bat, but something at least. As for color, I could never transmit the actual experience, but I could explain how it works when I see something. What things and types of things have which colors. Shadows. I don't know whether a blind person would be interested in those things.

Matisse's Cut-outs are some of my favourite artworks, minimal yet sophisticated. — RussellA

Three chords and the truth is a vote for the value of unsophisticated art. The truth, in this sense, is not a matter of sophistication. It's what comes from the heart.

Our inborn instincts could be said to include "facts, information and skills" — RussellA

You're stretching the meaning of those words to match reality.

Our "experience and education" has been acquired through billions of years of evolution rather than the schoolroom. — RussellA

Again, you are distorting the meaning of "experience and education."

Then it must be the case that the brain has the innate capacity to apprehend general relations of particulars and does have the innate power to make experience intelligible. — RussellA

Two points. First, I think you're distorting language again. Second, it is my understanding that a lot of the sensory "knowledge" you are talking about comes from the actual machinery, e.g. taste buds for specific chemicals and rods and cones for specific ranges of light and color. Calling that "knowledge" is more than just a distortion.

I had directly voting for legislation in mind, — Down The Rabbit Hole

Again, that would be a disaster. How would laws be developed? Who would write them? Initiative petition or referendum? If it was run like Massachusetts, a petition by fewer than 3 million people would put a law on the ballot. What about all the daily, tedious, keep the machinery running laws? Who would deal with those? Bad, bad, bad idea.

directly voting for our leaders/representatives would be less controversial. I understand the 2016 presidential election demonstrated how undemocratic the process can be. Didn't the loser have the most votes? — Down The Rabbit Hole

That doesn't make it undemocratic, no matter what the Democratic cry babies would have you believe. I'm a registered Democrat by the way. Democracy doesn't have to be perfect majority rules. The electoral college is a clunky piece of machinery. I'm on the fence whether it should be abandoned or not. One thing it would do, for better or worse, is force almost all campaigning into just a few states. I'm not sure if that would be a good thing or not.

The primary argument against direct democracy in the creation of law is that the law would be changing with the wind, and this would be unsustainable. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Yes, it would be.

I'm not opposed to giving up some democracy in the interests of a system that works smoothly or protection for minorities. — Down The Rabbit Hole

Again, a system that is not pure majority rule is not necessarily undemocratic. If you think majority rule will help protect minorities, you are way off. We could outlaw Islam with nothing to stop us. Did I mention it was a bad, bad, bad idea.

They'll just exit the US like so many before them. — frank

They have a lot of customers here and they need to be here to serve them. They won't be able to escape.

Direct democracy would be as pure as you could get, — Down The Rabbit Hole

Direct democracy would be a disaster. In New England we have a tradition of Town Meetings, which act as the legislature for towns. They meet once or twice a year. It's a very clunky system, although it works ok on a small scale. Are you suggesting that people would vote on federal and state legislation from their homes? Or are you only talking about the presidential elections?

Good government requires quite a bit of friction to slow things down. In the US, that has gotten out of hand, but the principle is sound. The direct democracy option would just move the chaos that's found on the internet even deeper into our political system.

Both have been pretty thoroughly ground into the dust. We need a system reset. — frank

Seems like there is some enthusiasm for putting the squeeze on some corporations. Those are mainly tech companies, which probably aren't the main problem. Unions seem to be waking up a bit too. May be a flash in the pan. We'll see.

Apathy about communities and employees is made possible by private property, but that kind of disregard requires a large mobile work force that can be exploited. That's not always available, as we're now seeing in the US. — frank

I wonder how long the worker shortage will last. Probably not long enough to make a permanent difference. We need regulation and labor unions.

Is this undemocratic? — Down The Rabbit Hole

Democracy is government by the governed. There are lots of different ways this can be configured and still fall within the meaning of the word.

There is no correct definition of art — RussellA

Perhaps, but there are incorrect definitions of "art." There are also definitions that are of very little use. Several of those have been expounded in this thread. Art is not magical. It's a means of human expression and communication. We don't need no highfalutin definitions.

I would define the aesthetic as unity in variety, along the lines of Hucheson. Hucheson is giving an objective definition of the aesthetic, not attempting to describe the subjective experience. — RussellA

Keeping in mind that "aesthetic" actually has an accepted meaning - Concerned with beauty or the appreciation of beauty.

But I can never describe the subjective experience of the colour red or the aesthetic to someone who can never experience the colour red or aesthetic. — RussellA

I've always hated this idea - that we can't explain sight to a blind person, color to someone color blind. Of course we can. And by explain, I mean to give an intuitive understanding of what the experience is like. I'm sure it won't be as good as a sighted person's grasp would be.

Value as the regard that something is held to deserve, the judgement of good or bad, in that the aesthetic of a Rembrandt is better than the aesthetic of a child's crayon sketch. — RussellA

Ok, as long as you aren't selling that more sophisticated means better. I have a drawing my younger son (five when he painted it, 31 now) that I love as much as anything I've seen. Not just because it's from him. It's a night time view of a simple dark blue sky over a black ground surface with a bright yellow flash of lightening cracking across the sky. It was shockingly beautiful when I first saw it 26 years ago and it still makes me smile. It was up on his door until he left home a few years ago. There's a saying in country music - three chords and the truth. There is a connection between technique and beauty, but it is not a simple one.

Evolution does not explain what the aesthetic is, but evolution does explain why the aesthetic originated in sentient life. — RussellA

Well, maybe. Sure our brain evolved to establish patterns, but it also evolved to assign value. As far as beauty is concerned, value may be as much or more important than pattern.

Human a priori knowledge is that knowledge necessary to survive in the particular world we find ourselves in. It would follow that a sentient life evolving in a different world, whether hotter, silicon based or higher gravity, would have different a priori knowledge suitable for that different world. — RussellA

It is my understanding that humans are not born with much a priori knowledge of the world. We are born with inborn instincts for certain ways of processing the world, learning about it, e.g. language.

Sentient life, including humans, are born with certain innate knowledge - such as the colour red, bitter tastes, acrid smells, what is hot to the touch, the pain of a headache, as well as the aesthetic. — RussellA

I don't think we are born with a priori knowledge or color, acidity, bitterness, pain, or heat. We are born with the equipment to collect sensory input and the processing ability to interpret and use it. We have sensors in our mouths that are sensitive to acid, bitterness, saltiness, and sweet. We have sensors in our eyes that are sensitive to light and three colors (if my memory is correct).

But this is particular knowledge, in that I am not able to imagine an bitter taste independent of experiencing through my senses an object in the world that gives me the subjective experience of a bitter taste. — RussellA

I'm sure someone could induce a bitter taste in your mouth with direct stimulation of specific taste buds with no contact with a substance we would call "bitter."

The aesthetic is important because it is an innate foundational ability of sentient life to discover patterns in a seemingly chaotic world. — RussellA

I don't know if this is true or not.

I was going to say that I think you are over-simplifying things, but I think what you are really doing is over -complicating them.

It sounds like you're discussing the intersubjective aspects of object permanence -- on-topic -- but in code, or using the forum as a metaphor. — Srap Tasmaner

Yes. That's exactly right.

Note - this is a four year old thread. It would be helpful if you would point that out when you post. That being said, here is my response:

Lamest paradox ever.

Elephant art really stands apart. — praxis

I'd rather have the elephant art on my wall than the Mona Lisa. It matches the rug in the living room.

Many economic theories are based on the assumption that businesses exist to maximize profits. Neoclassical economists (mainstream) use the profit motive as an axiom to build economic models. Making money is seen as the single purpose for all business. — Wheatley

Free market capitalism works. Other systems, e.g. government controls, don't seem to. What do I mean when I say "capitalism works?" It creates a market that gets resources to the places they're needed in a more or less efficient manner. When I fly over New York City and northern New Jersey, I get a visceral feel for the vastly complicated network of pushes and pulls that create the civilization I'm flying over, for better or worse. Problem - often, usually? capitalism does what it does with no regard to it's employees, the surrounding communities, or the world at large. The involvement of large corporations can make things much worse. Solution - 1) govern regulation 2) labor unions and 3)...? I don't think the revolution of the proletariat, if it were possible, would be a very good candidate.

Both these paintings are done by elephants:

I see many art works as actually dealing with philosophical problems, but the artists themselves and their audience often don't see it that way. — baker

If the artists and audience don't see it, maybe it comes from you. That's not a criticism. The experience of art includes how it fits in with the rest of our experience.

Now, don't make me cart my copy of "Best Loved Poems of the American People" out of mothballs... — Michael Zwingli

Please do.

Modern life in a nutshell. — Outlander

Hi.
I
try
my
wry
reply
hereby.
sigh,
goodbye.

Myself as well. Owen, through his poetry, was one of the major writers chronicling the horrors of the First World War. This is my favorite of his poems, of which I especially admire the rhyme scheme. The fact of an odd number, seven, of lines per stanza, I find interesting. Note how lines 1-3 and 2-4 of both stanzas uses alliterative rhyme, and lines 5-7 uses true, direct rhyme. It's just really good in it's effect. — Michael Zwingli

You read poetry more closely than I do. When I first read it, I did note the meter as being very satisfying. Serious, but not too somber. Matter of fact. Even after your explication, the rhyme scheme doesn't jump out at me.

What gets to me is the imagery, especially the lines I quoted, but the rest as well. I really like "wake" and "woke." The first line is great. "Move him into the sun—." Completely concrete before it moves on to the imagery.