According to Moral Foundation Theory, I (atheist) have an unusually high reliance on the senses of care/harm and fairness/cheating, and a much lower reliance on the senses of loyalty/betrayal, authority/subversion, and sanctity/degradation. Basically the profile of a progressive liberal, according to the theory.

A theist will generally rely more on loyalty, authority, and sanctity, giving them a broader and more balanced moral framework, the primary benefit being more cohesive and successful social groups (not necessarily societies).

I'd suggest rephrasing the last two options to say something like:

I identify as... but am anatomically a woman.
I identify as... but am anatomically a man.

All you’re essentially saying is that he’s good at the manipulation of his base (not the sharpest tools in the shed).
— praxis

All I'm saying is that he won, because he is the sharpest tool in the shed in some important respects. — Jake

I was thinking of something he said in a press conference the other day that demonstrates what a dull tool he is. When asked if he thought that adopting a nationalist identity shows support for white nationalists, he responded by saying that it was a “racist question”. That’s off key because it expresses a fundamentally liberal value of equality or individual rights. If he had time to think or be advised, a more ‘on brand’ response should have been some rhetoric about the nation not being treated fairly and taking care of our own, or something about the evils of globalists.

What I was thinking at the time was that, for example, if Trump had only received one million from his father as he claimed, rather than the 413 million that research reveald, he may not have been in a position to run for office and win.

Defiantly, maybe not at Boarderline though.

You know anyone that was there? A former student of my wife was there, and survived. The younger sister of another one her students was there and did not. Such a tragedy.

There’ll probably be an earthquake tomorrow.

I live in Oxnard, btw, and used to go to boarderline all the time when they had a Latin night.

No, he’s simply willing to do what others with principles and less selfish goals are not. The almost half a billion dollars he inherited from his father also gave him an unusual advantage.

All you’re essentially saying is that he’s good at the manipulation of his base (not the sharpest tools in the shed). The evidence indicates that the motivation behind his tactics is at least primarily to gain power and wealth, rather than advance a more noble goal like human flourishing.

A leader with principles and unselfish goals wouldn’t be able to do what he does, that’s for sure.

Lol, I know$

I meant Democrats should NOT make climate an identity issue. — DiegoT

Unfortunately, Al Gore championing the issue seems to have made it one.

Well, I’ve been trying varieties like yogurt, kombucha, and kimchi lately. Enjoyable regardless of any microbial benefits. But yeah, I must have been thinking of antibiotical recovery rather than a simple cleanse.

The results were zero polyps, zero cancers, all good. — Bitter Crank

Congrats. You might want to consider consuming probiotics of some kind to help along the microbial recolonization of your gut tract.

Any thing is a useful concept and therefore has value, if only in a utilitarian sense.

What is any thing? Anything.

How to prove its value? Try referring to anything without using the term that signifies it and you will instantly see its value.

Priests swapping jobs with nuns? Pointless.

Who knew a grouchy old socialist would take the Democratic Party by storm?

A democratic socialist.

I can live in peace while stirring up hornet's nest, but am I accomplishing anything that is worth disturbing the peace of others? — Jake

I'm curious what the circumstances have been for you.

I've engaged this sort of thing in religious based forums, but where I differ from you is in that I was interested in fleshing out my own ideas rather than stirring the nest for no constructive reason. And because I had a reason and investment, I wasn't fully in peace, it took a toll.

I voted to delegitimize the Republican Party (in its current state anyway), though I don't think it'll matter much were I live.

An aesthetic experience, like a ‘flow’ experiences or task positive activities, all have a common neural state which is understood to be a deactivation of the DMN (default mode network). Deactivation of the DMN is also evident in ‘spiritual experiences’.

There are a few possibilities:

Art for aesthetic pleasure.

Art to communicate some idea or concept, enhanced aesthetically.

Art to communicate a religious concept, enhanced aesthetically.

Art to induce a ‘spiritual experience’.

The thing is that, depending on the individual and their particular state of mind when experiencing an art form, a person may experience any, all, or none of the above. There isn’t really anything mysterious about it.

On one hand, the group needs shared assumptions to hold it together, and such assumptions may be serving a useful purpose even if technically they are not fully logical. Religion comes to mind as an example.

On the other hand, the group also needs to be protected from placing too big of a bet on assumptions which are not aligned with reality. — Jake

A child or otherwise ignorant individual may need to rely on the security and guidance of a shared belief system because they don’t have a good grasp of ‘reality’. An adult may have a better grasp of who they are, what they value, their purposes in the world, etc.

Thinking for yourself can at first feel disorienting until you get your bearings, I imagine.

Speaking purely philosophically, it seems somewhat questionable that, as philosophers, we should accept the utter wrongness of Nazism as a matter of faith without making any attempt to see all sides of the question. — Jake

Nothing is preventing you from creating a topic that explores all sides of Nazism. Maybe you’re afraid of being stigmatized? A true philosopher is fearless! :strong:

The Nazis had many a good book burning, btw, so I can see the appeal for you.

I forgot to mention the Soros funded toothpicks. That ham is gonna get skewered and served on a plate with cheese & crackers.

Ah. Love will conquer all, so they say.

Cute, but shouldn't they have designed you to be a bit more... how can I say this delicately, smart.

That was before my time. Sorry you had to live through it, you old geezer.

↪praxis So you're saying that global warming didn't climb to the top. It was chosen for its emotional appeal on both sides. It feeds the liberal's need to... — frank

I guess I'm only saying that people tend to pursue shortsighted goals, despite how irrational that may be. Do we need to look any farther than ourselves for evidence of this?

:up:

You wanted to discuss public perception of existential threats. My point is that it can be largely shaped by the media and influential figures who may use these perceived threats to pursue unrelated goals. Is a lot of this irrational? Yes, welcome to the human race.

Don’t worry, the threat will be forgotten after Tuesday.

How did global warming climb to the top of the pile? — frank

The top of the pile today is the invasion force (destitute asylum seekers) header for the US Southern border. Trump wants to send 15,000 troops to stop this imminent threat to our great country.

One significant difference is that one has been politicized and the other hasn't. Perhaps Trump will try to politicize the threat of meteor impacts in an effort to fund his Space Force :nerd: and the issue will become championed by conservatives.

Where are you going with this?

I would like to comment on one last thing.

Argument by ridicule is a really pathetic, short-sighted tactic. — unenlightened

Besides what Karl mentioned, it can be a tactic to try getting to know someone better by seeing how they respond to taunting, in a situation where they're unresponsive to reasoning. Jake is remarkably unresponsive to both reasoning and provocation. To me that may indicate a clarity of purpose, which could be admirable if the commitment wasn't to the fault that it appears to be. In other words, it's questionable what he's really committed to.

I am at having to address his doom mongering nonsense over and over and over and over... — karl stone

To be fair, the doom part isn’t nonsensical. The alleged cause and hint of a solution (“some governing mechanism”) is.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, I’m glad there are people like you thinking of solutions. And on that note I’ll take my leave of the topic. Sorry if I’ve muddied the water by engaging the nonsense.

The Amish: The group consensus keeps saying that modifying "more is better" is impossible, while blatantly ignoring the real world evidence that some among us have already long ago done so, and continue to do so successfully. While it's very unlikely that we'll all become Amish, what the Amish have proven is that it's possible to have fulfilling human lives without totally surrendering to the dangerous pursuit of more and more and more without limit. — Jake

No one has said it's impossible, and most people know there are cultures who possess values not based in materialism. We may even recognize that such a way of life may be happier and more fulfilling or meaningful, in addition to it being sustainable.

What you're unwilling to admit is that you can't force a cultural reformation by restricting a valuable resource like knowledge.

I think it's a reasonable criticism to take on board and address in relation to my own ideas. It's entirely central to my plan that political and capitalist economic interests see the advantages in this approach - and adopt it voluntarily. There are vast potential benefits unlocked by recognizing the relation between the validity of the knowledge bases of action and the consequences of such action. i.e. knowing what's true and doing what's right - and it's important they do not feel it's a threat to the bottom line - else it just won't happen. — karl stone

Have you heard of the ocean cleanup project? (https://www.theoceancleanup.com)

I think it's at least partly funded by recycling, but in any case, I believe it's a relatively low cost and high benefit solution.

Nor does science culture have a superior understanding of reason, given that they are still selling us an outdated "more is better" paradigm from the 19th century in spite of clear compelling evidence (thousands of hydrogen bombs) that we simply aren't ready for more and more power without limit. — Jake

“Science culture” is selling us an outdated paradigm of greed???

Praxis: You keep trying to have it both ways. You can't claim that they are saying Trump "encourages political violence" but "makes no claim that Trump directly caused the MAGA bomber...." Encourage? That's causation. — LD Saunders

If I encouraged you to insult Trump supporters the encouraging statements would be factual. Whether or not you insulted any, it would be an open question as to whether I was to blame for your actions, and that’s what TYT’s said about the situation with Trump and the MAGA Bomber.

In the Dollamore video he doesn’t make any explicit statements about Trump being a cause or that he is to blame, probably to avoid any libel trouble.

The MAGA bomber is a domestic terrorist. Trump has made many statements encouraging political violence. The MAGA bomber shows signs of being influenced by Trump and his divisive rhetoric. Those are the facts.

Praxis: Quit assuming nonsense. Jesse Dollamore, or some name like that, just posted a video yesterday from his site about how Trump's speech caused the violence. Numerous news shows say the same thing, as well as numerous articles that have been posted all over the web. The Young Turks, CNN, MSNBC, they all have been saying it, for days. If you are too lazy to find these postings, then that's not my problem, it is yours. — LD Saunders

I just watch a TYT video about the "MAGA bomber" just now and they said it's a question whether Trump is at fault for the bombers actions. They say that it's a fact that he encouraged violence and present evidence of him doing so. I would expect TYT to be the least neutral of the "major news networks."



Also looked up Jesse Dollamore and found the relevant video:



Like TYT he shows how Trump encourages political violence but makes no claim that Trump directly caused the MAGA bomber to mail bombs. I expected him to be less neutral than TYT.

He makes a good point that if Trump doesn't understand the influential power of the president or if he uses it irresponsibly then he must be unfit for the position.

People tend to abuse all valuable resources and not just knowledge...
— praxis

True, but knowledge is the source of the powers that we abuse. — Jake

That's an odd thought, and you haven't yet addressed the issue of the need for advanced knowledge in the development of "some governing mechanism" that could enable your grand plan of knowledge suppression. As I pointed out, it would require an immodest amount of power, to put it mildly, in order to regulate all scientific research and technology across the globe. You'd need some pretty big guns to force your policies on every nation in the world, as well as some kind of advanced surveillance system like a powerful AGI. It would basically require technologies that are far more dangerous than anything that exists today.

A self-defeating plan is a stupid plan.

At the least we might test ourselves before proceeding to see if we are ready for more power. Can we get rid of nuclear weapons? — Jake

We've had nuclear weapons for around 75 years and haven't blown ourselves up yet. Maybe this is sufficient evidence that we can handle more powerful technologies.

In the past when the scale of powers was modest, we could afford to make mistakes. — Jake

Burning fossil fuel is pretty low tech and modest in power. Can we afford the results? People tend to abuse all valuable resources and not just knowledge, so restricting this one resource is not a solution. And speaking of power, some “governing mechanism” would require an immodest amount to effectively regulate scientific reasearch and technology on a global scale. Developing it would be antithetical your theory.