I think people who find it hard to multi-task may find that difficult, but my reasoning is sound, which is that we need to move toward a more multi-dimensional modality of conveying information, not just text, not just words, imagery too! — intrapersona

Have you ever been watching a movie and sudenly noticed the soundtrack because it was some how off or too overbearing? I guess being aware of a movie and its soundtrack at the same time is multi-tasking.

The buddhist monk attaining nirvana, which is unified in its qualities of consciousness with other monks or even sages who have attained moksha (liberation from delusion) requires no logical proof of its truth about reality. For its truth is attained only within the ontology it is sought within and needs no further justification. Perhaps that is why our human thought, philosophy and scientific progress has so many loose ends, we have simply come to a rabbit hole with no end. — intrapersona

The cessasion of suffering is proof of nirvana. Everything else is, as you put it so well, a rabbit hole with no end.

I just found it a funny coincidence, both attacks having occured within a day of each other and both being related to the power of theocracy and wannabe theocracy.

Funny. It’s also funny that on the day before the Salman attack a man attacked the FBI armed with an assault rifle. This man was also at the January 6th assault on the Capital.

Many Trumpists openly advocate for the establishment of a Christian theocracy in the US.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/13/extremists-like-marjorie-taylor-greene-are-the-future-of-the-republican-party

That's true what it says, but, as noted in other threads, there's no evidence of any actual stonings or biblically mandated death penalties in the past 2,000 + years. — Hanover

:chin: Really? Historical events like the Inquisition immediately come to mind.

In all fairness, no religion cares much for the blasphemous.

Leviticus 24:16 says, “Anyone who blasphemes the name of the LORD must be put to death. The entire assembly must stone him. Whether an alien or native-born, when he blasphemes the Name, he must be put to death.”

My question:

Was the attack on Salman Rushdie consistent with mainstream Muslim theology?
— Hanover

Is the final answer: Yes to Shia Muslims, no to Sunni Muslims?

Or is there another distinction I've missed with my Western eyes? — Hanover

Your question asks about mainstream Muslim theology and mainstream Muslim theology applies to all Muslims, or rather, what is common to all sects of Islam. Blasphemy in Islam is an impious utterance or action concerning God, Muhammad, or anything considered sacred in Islam. The Quran admonishes blasphemy but does not specify any worldly punishment for it.

I'm sure it's been mentioned that Muslim clerics may call for the punishment of an alleged blasphemer by issuing a fatwā.

According to Islamic sources Nadr ibn al-Harith, who was an Arab Pagan doctor from Taif, used to tell stories of Rustam and Esfandiyār to the Arabs and scoffed at Muhammad. After the battle of Badr, al-Harith was captured and, in retaliation, Muhammad ordered his execution in hands of Ali, who was a cousin, son-in-law, and companion of Muhammad.

The following is a depiction of Nadr ibn al-Harith's punishment in the presence of Muhammad.

I watched a few second of the video and in those few seconds it was off-putting to me because:

1) There were people taking JP seriously.

2) The people taking JP seriously were making insulting comments about him. That’s surprises me because I don’t usually mind that sort of thing.

I would be interested in your general opinion of the usefulness of angry exchanges between people to YOU as a reader and observer. — universeness

I’m a little confused because as far as I can tell there is no “exchange”. The video you linked to, of which I briefly skimmed, appears to be a couple of guy’s ridiculing a ridiculous JP video.

My Theory X isn’t anything to write home about and is quite worthless.

Collectivist in ways that matter, such as, again, being based on egalitarian social relations and common ownership. Not based on, for instance, a twisted sense of human nature where we’re continually bent on competition for resources and social status.

AOC is the devil incarnate for the Right though. On the other hand, what’s really the point of a moderate other than maintaining how things already are when things could be better. Things could could be a hell of a lot better.

A place to share ideas or theories. If I developed a theory about something, say a theory that I called Theory X, I could submit said theory for review on a forum that is most relevant to Theory X. Others could read my theory and, depending on how it is received, applaud it, criticize it, laugh at it or express other non-linguistic feelings, or simply ignore it. In such a case a question could be asked, although, and this is the point, it could be that no questions are asked.

At any rate, and in effect, it always turns out that the “interests of the collective” are only the interests of a portion of the collective, usually those individuals with the power and prestige to act as the mind and mouth of the people they feign to speak for. Other portions, those not of the ruling portion, are subordinate to them. Other portions still, those who dissent or fall into an enemy class, are imprisoned, enslaved, or worse. So much for the collective. — NOS4A2

This is actually profoundly wrong. For the vast majority of history, sapiens lived as hunter-gatherers, collectivist groups based on egalitarian social relations and common ownership.

I wonder if his TPF account was hacked? — jgill

I hope this isn’t too silly of a question but why would anyone bother to do that? :chin:

I remember when Mayael requested the following consideration of me:

all I ask is that you try to talk to others over the internet the same way your mother makes you talk to people in real life — MAYAEL

So I assume that mom was a homophobe as well.

With great difficulty. — Bartricks

I imagine that a hemispherectomy ain’t no walk in the park either.

Daniel raises a salient point; how does one maintain a erection after a boner is divided?

The only extended thing that begins with a b that you can conceive of is a banana? — Bartricks

How about boner.

Shall we run through every single extended thing you can conceive of? — Bartricks

Okay. Going alphabetically, what comes after banana?

That's half a brain. Brains can be halved. Minds can't be halved. Minds are therefore not brains — Bartricks

If I may utilize your fine logic, half a banana is still a banana.

It's indivisible. Half a mind makes no sense. Half a banana, yes. Half a sandwich, yes. Half a mind, no - incoherent — Bartricks

Lock him up! Lock him up!

Ideas aside, if I may offer a brief critique of the video presentation, it's far too long and rambling for what substance it offers, though I can't say that with much certainty because I could only bear to watch about a fifth of it. Also, the powerpoint-like images presented, which must have taken a lot of work, were more distracting than enhancing.

I'm not so sure. I once dreamt I was fluent in French (I'm not). I was talking it and understanding it in the logic of a dream state. — Tom Storm

I’m pretty sure that if you were to remember what you said in French within the dream and repeated it to a French speaker in the waking world they would say something like, “Que dis-tu?”

Nothing is fully imagined or understood in dreams, let along in a potential solipsistic universe. — Tom Storm

True, however, my dreams are entirely comprised of elements that I know or have experienced. I can't dream understanding the language of Japanese, for instance. I could dream about walking on the moon, I imagine, but it wouldn't be anything like Neil Armstrong's moon dreams. It would probably play out like a dumb episode of Space:1999. My dreams tend to be really dumb.

You bemoan my repeating things and then ask me to repeat things.

I leave you with the following quote:

Neglecting an election is a minor instance of freeloading, in my opinion. — praxis

Nevertheless, from what I've read on selectorate theory, the people tend to do best in democracies. Democracies require sufficient supporting institutions (checks on power and whatever) though.

Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems considerably more plausible that the purpose of elections is to select a representative. — Isaac

In American elections, we vote for representatives but also many propositions and such. In any case, it seems to me that making a decision about who represents my interests is an act of will.

Why would it need to be a 'great sin' to warrant a counter argument. — Isaac

I was referring to your rhetorical question about the potential consequences of the absence of your vote. Sorry I mentioned it though, be as dramatic as you want.

Talk of one risking the very existence of democracy strikes me as the more 'dramatic' stance. — Isaac

If you're saying that I've expressed such talk would you mind pointing it out?

I think the purpose of an election is essentially to express the will of the community. Abstainers are part of the community but fail to express their will via voting and therefore the election is less successful.

A hair drier can still function, for example, with many failed parts but its performance will suffer.

Your drama is unwarranted because no one has claimed, as far as I've seen, that abstaining from an election is any great sin.

The election that you neglect in situation 2 lacks a vote, obviously. Elections require votes in order to fulfill their purpose.

Sorry for the pain this simplicity must be causing you, btw.

I choose not to subject you or myself to further tedium or torturous simplicity, Isaac.

So, if you believe voting is a duty, explain why.
Because I value or benefit from democracy, does that mean I have a duty to vote? — Yohan

I wouldn’t describe it as a duty but rather an acceptance of responsibility. Selfishly failing to contribute to a cooperative effort is freeloading. Neglecting an election is a minor instance of freeloading, in my opinion. It seems to me that it’s most inline with the spirit of a “free country” to take responsibility rather than it being dictated to you. This is what I find curious about the libertarian. They should be the first in line to take responsibility, assuming they actually value freedom.

If you were a figment of my imagination I would know more about you then you do. Do you think that I know more about you then you do? I don’t know the color of the shirt you’re currently wearing, assuming you’re wearing one. You most likely do.

They are representations. My mind models a representation of you, for instance.

Idealism and solipsism are derived from the simple fact that a world external to mind or self respectively can't be known to exist. As you can see, these philosophical stances are predicated on possibility (metaphysics) and agnoiological (epistemological) concerns. — Agent Smith

Prove it.

I'm having trouble following you. I'd rather not repeat myself, actually.

Now I can only speculate that your interest is about freeloading, what moral sense it may be based on or something. I can only guess at this point. Oops, just repeated myself again.

Having just taken a peek, the turnout rate has been around 90% for the last few years in Australia, if I looked at it right and not too briefly. Hugely better than US elections. The quality of US voters is also rather poor considering the recent decisions we’ve made.

If you live in a democracy, benefit from and value that democracy, and you're able to participate in the voting process without an unreasonable burden but choose not to, then in my opinion you're freeloading to some degree. One ought not to freeload.

I haven't made that assumption. I don't even know if you live in a democracy, though I think you live in the UK. Do you live in a democracy? and if so, do you value and benefit from living in that democracy?

Even though an individual is able and has the time they choose not to participate in a cooperative group effort that they value and benefit from.

Definition of freeload
intransitive verb
: to impose upon another's generosity or hospitality without sharing in the cost or responsibility involved