I don't think so. I think he understands it's quite possible that he'll lose the election and seeks to convince people that if he loses it can only be due to fraud. That's not showing "greatness of spirit" in my book. It's shows meanness of spirit, a spiteful spirit, intent on undermining not only the authority and legitimacy of the victor, but the election process itself if he's unsuccessful. — Ciceronianus the White
Yes, indeed. This is what he is known for. Sore loser. After all, he gained the political spotlight years ago when he tried to undermine the authority and legitimacy of Barack Obama on dubious grounds, then persisted in doing so for years, and remains defensive, and even proud about it, to this very day. — Sapientia
I don't know about that. I don't think the executive branch can actually start a trade war. — Mongrel
Otherwise, Trump is isolationist. Most of the attempts of the US to be involved in the world lately have resulted in all-out grade-A catastrophe.. so maybe a little isolationism would give the world a break. — Mongrel
I don't know that much about it, to be honest. But I know that he has made it clear that he will use whatever power he has to take the stick approach, rather than the carrot approach. Especially when it comes to China. And that strikes me as concerning, in that it seems risky and potentially damaging and counterproductive. — Sapientia
And judging by their own reactions, it is clear that they see a Trump presidency as troubling, in stark contrast to a Clinton presidency, which doesn't even get brought up. — Sapientia
I am also excited by the possibility of electing the first female president. It's interesting how little discussion that's merited, either because that fact has been so overshadowed by Trump's antics, or because people are just so used to Hillary that it barely registers: she's just part of the political furniture by this point.I have to say I am working up a little emotion over voting for the first female president of my country. Really? Woo Hoo! — Mongrel
I am also excited by the possibility of electing the first female president. It's interesting how little discussion that's merited, either because that fact has been so overshadowed by Trump's antics, or because people are just so used to Hillary that it barely registers: she's just part of the political furniture by this point. — Arkady
And I think your general incoherence may just be matched by your lack of judgement... which means it's a sure as hell bet that the closest psychiatric ward wants you. Have you checked into whether they have a free spot for you in there - because I tell you this last post of yours makes no sense at all.I think your arrogance might just be matched by your naivete... which means it's a sure bet that Uncle Sam wants you. Have you checked into whether you can fast-track to citizenship with military service? — Mongrel
"If the person really loves then their acts will be moral" - no. Have I said that? I said that for morality to be the case their intention must be loving, and their action based on duty. The fact that "if the person really loves then their acts will be moral" is your thinking, not mine. You asked me on what morality is based - so I told you what it is based for me. That's my framework. Now it seems you want to question the framework, but if so, then you should make this clear instead of presupposing another framework in order to question it.OK, so the love is in the person. If the person really loves then their acts will be moral, no? So where does duty come into it? If you do something you want to do (out of love) it is not a matter of duty and it will be moral, or else the love was not genuine. — John
>:O these firsts don't mean anything. Look at Obama. First black President. Did things improve for blacks? For many things haven't improved at all - they still face problems of poverty, lack of education and rampant crime. But now folks get to tell them "Why are you complaining - look you have a black President!" These firsts are just getting yourself drunk on nothing, they're actually more unhelpful than helpful.first female president of my country. — Mongrel
You're not reading the question. Let's go over it again.Pretty much. Women don't have to do anything in particular for men to feel that way. In a society where women are not locked away, where they are free to participate in society and draw attention, care, time and resources from others, men will notice beautiful women all the time.
If we are expecting women not to be noticed by men, we are asking them to withdraw from public life, to have no interest in gaining from the wider community, to care not for their public status (e.g. job, friends, whether they are likeable to a stranger) and to cover themselves head to toe, so they aren't recognisable as an individual who draws attention. To be someone, and wanting to be someone, who is sexually desirable to others is part of existing in public life, by the mere fact of people paying attention to you, sharing their time and resources, as is part of loving in the public sphere.
Many men feel "under the spell and control of beauty" by nothing more than a woman walking down the street in jeans and t-shirt. Or the smiling waitress with a presentable casual uniform. Or the woman in a blouse and slacks working in the office. Merely by living and interacting with others, women are people who are desired. Unless women get locked away, this is something men are going to have to deal with. — TheWillowOfDarkness
The question isn't about the fact that by the mere fact of their existence women will attract attention, care, time and resources. It's not about the fact that by their mere living in society they will attract attention to themselves. The question is whether they should WANT that. I can attract all the attention in the world when I go in the street. It doesn't follow that I should actively seek to do that - ie want it. It can be just another fact of my existence, just like my shadow. So I'm asking you whether it's honorable to WANT to be desired sexually. Whether it's honorable to want others to feel like they are your property, and under the spell and control of your beauty?Oh so this wanting people to desire you sexually is a good and honorable desire no? It's good and honorable to want others to feel like they are your property, under the spell and control of your beauty right? — Agustino
No actually I haven't. That's what you think I was thinking. It's clearly not what I have written.My point was not that they were moral, but that you were equivocating a woman's appearance and behaviour with her desire to have sex. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Nope - my arguments never said she wants to have sex. Only that she wants to dominate. Having sex may or may not be part of that.You say she wants to dominate you here, but previously your arguments were saying she wanted to have sex because of how she appeared or behaved — TheWillowOfDarkness
Not at all. I actually claimed the contrary.If you made a pass at that woman or even raped her, it would be justified because she really "wanted it." — TheWillowOfDarkness
I insist that SOME of the women wanted his sexual attention - and even if they wanted it, they were still abused. Just wanting something or consenting to it doesn't mean you're not abused.You insisted the women really wanted his sexual attention (meaning, you know, he hasn't violated consent and the women haven't been abused by being acted on sexual against their will) — TheWillowOfDarkness
I'm getting sick and tired of you not reading what I'm writting and asking you. Again you answered an entirely different question, an answer with which of course I agree! I doubt you'll ever find a person who doesn't agree. But my question was different. it's not whether states of women are "sexually desirable" or necessary for social relations, etc.Because many states which register to men as "sexually desirable" are a mere fact of their existence or are somehow related to other social relations, personal expression, maintaining employment, being interesting to others, etc.,etc. It's not fucking hard, Agustino. You just have to take a moment and think about what matters to women, what she needs to do to maintain social relations, be someone who lives with others etc., etc. — TheWillowOfDarkness
It's whether they WANT to be sexually desirable or not. She can be the most beautiful women and go out there normally, and attract the attention of all the men she passes by - sure. But that has nothing to do with whether she actually wants to do this. Someone can be unconcerned about whether they are sexually desirable or not. Or someone can WANT to be sexually desirable. So I'm asking you why, if she's not available, would she WANT to be sexually desirable - not why she may be sexually desirable nonetheless because of other factors that are, let's say, not up to her.Then if they're not available why the hell do they want to be sexually desirable if not in order to have power and dominate? — Agustino
Typical progressives :P - when things don't go their way, they're willing to do anything to make them go that way. And by the way, I'm not a sympathiser of Brexit at all.Now I recall our debate on Brexit and my willingness to accept any (legal) route to ignore the referendum result. ;) — Michael
;) What difference would that make if you were the one making the laws? — Agustino
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.