Agree or disagree? — Adam Hilstad

Sort of agree, tentatively.

However, given that love is said to involve a subject (lover) and an object (loved), perhaps it depends on the relation between the two?

What about love of truth, goodness or beauty?

And if we take Platonism or other monistic traditions which hold that all is One Reality, then love of the other would ultimately be love of oneself.

Is that selfishness or selflessness, or both and neither?

I thought I had already answered that. But anyway, (1) to exercise our gray cells or mind and (2) to show believers in reincarnation that their belief isn't irrational.

Additional answers may emerge as the discussion proceeds at its own pace.

Wasn't it Obama that once said something about cultural DNA, heritage, legacy, something like that, a lingering problem that needs addressing...? — jorndoe

You mean white cultural DNA, heritage, legacy, etc. being a problem that needs addressing, don't you? So, perhaps we should start building concentration camps to get rid of all that white cultural DNA, etc.? Some might see that as the fastest final solution.

What the fuck do I need to do to get your head out of your ass and stop talking to me and about me as if I were religious? — baker

You just can't win, can you? Atheists have their own religion and superstitions, it seems. But, should Buddhists not try and be a bit more relaxed about attacks from their detractors?

I think a major point that has been missed here is the ultimate objective of Fabianism. When I ask people what current political system they think Fabianism most resembles, they tend to say “America” or “England”. This immediately tells me that they have failed to process and assimilate what Fabianism is about, because the answer is China (though it used to be the Soviet Union).

Shocking as this may sound, this is the reality of Fabianism if we carefully read Fabian documents. As I said before, the original Fabians were radical members of the British Liberal Party and that means Marxists.

G B Shaw openly (and proudly) admitted that he discovered his political career by reading Marx. Now, at that time “Marxist” or “socialist” was a dirty word in polite society. There was no way middle-class Liberals could have promoted Marxism openly. So, these “Liberal” Marxists decided to slightly modify Marxism to make it palatable to wider sections of society. So they used more indirect and suggestive language that still preserved the Marxist essence of Fabianism.

“The object of the Fabian Society is to persuade the English people to make their political constitution thoroughly democratic and so to socialize their industries as to make the livelihood of the people entirely independent of private Capitalism” - Fabian Tract No. 70, 3

The original agenda of the Labour Party which the Fabians founded in 1900 was to enforce socialism through nationalization, state control and abolition of private property.

Common ownership of the means of production, state administration and control of all industries and services (1918 Constitution).

Land nationalisation (1918 Manifesto, Labour and New social order, etc.).

That was exactly what the Fabians and Labour tried to enforce when they came to power in 1945 but failed to win support for all the Marxist policies they would have liked to implement.

But there is much more to it. Leading Fabians like H. G. Wells and G. B. Shaw were great admirers of totalitarian regimes such as Communist Russia to which they maintained close links.

The Webbs knew Lenin personally from before the 1917 Revolution (remember they were in contact with Marxist revolutionaries through the Socialist International and other organizations) and had a portrait of Lenin at their private home. They made several trips to Russia as did Shaw and wrote “Soviet Communism: A New Civilization” in praise of the regime which they believed should be copied by England and the whole world.

The Fabians regarded Bolshevism as “applied Fabianism”. They called the Soviet Union “Union of Fabian Republics”. Lenin was “the greatest statesman of Europe”. Stalin was a “good man” and a “good Fabian”, etc., etc.

So, basically, as many historians have pointed out, the Fabians were promoting Communism under the guise of “democratic socialism”. This is exactly what earned them the label of “Fabian Conspiracy” in addition to their well-documented policy of stealth.

IMO pretending to promote a democratic system when in fact you are promoting a totalitarian one is not only disingenuous but also undemocratic - by definition.

Atheism is ignorance, Agnosticism is the process of inquiry and theism is well, I’m agnostic so I don’t know what theism is. Theism is I guess the end of our pursuit to understand the entirety of the universe - the answer to all of our questions. — Benj96

I tend to agree with that. People often have a fear of the unknown and, in particular, of something they have no control over. So, instead of engaging with the reality of it they try to suppress it and end up denying its existence. It's a common psychological defense mechanism that comes into operation in many other cases not just in atheism.

People stop believing in God when they have reasons that convince them and visa versa. 'Fear' obviously can't work as a reason for not believing in something because you have to believe in God in order to fear it. — Tom Storm

That's not "obvious" at all. You may start not knowing or believing anything but still find an idea frightening and you push it out of your thoughts. By suppressing an idea that has a negative connotation for you, you may end up convincing yourself that the thing represented by that idea doesn't exist or shouldn't exist. People say all the time things like "this can't be true" even when it is. IMHO this tends to prove my point.

I think that it is interesting to discuss the controversial issues, but sometimes it seems like full scale war. I wish to explore certain amounts of controversy, but not to get too stressed out, because I have experienced so much stress in life anyway. I struggle with sleeping, and if I am glance at my phone in the night, I expect that I will see your thread popping up all night. However, my latest thread has been popping up quite a lot, so I may see that too. Anyway, I think that this is the last post for today, so goodnight.

I have noticed that you are referring to English politics, so are you based in England too? — Jack Cummins

That did make me laugh, imagining your phone flashing up in the night while its owner is struggling to gather his philosophical thoughts or go to sleep. I always switch mine off unless I'm expecting an important call. Otherwise people tend to abuse your friendship and try to force you into the role of agony aunt and turn you into a convenient extension of their personal life ....

But just the other night I had this dream about a pigeon that came back to me and next morning I got a parcel in the post of stuff I had ordered online ages ago. You did mention dreams earlier, mine tend to be of this "coded" type, sometimes more direct and obvious than other times but always connected with events taking place within the next few days. It is as if your subconscious is communicating to you in a language that you can learn quite easily if you make the effort. Some of my friends and acquaintances have that sort of dreams, too, and we have long discussions about it. Obviously, this is only explicable by positing the ability of human consciousness to operate not only independently of the physical body but also independently of time and space which is quite extraordinary really. Over time, this and other experiences (even more powerful and real than dreams) have convinced me than there must be some truth in reincarnation. This is what I mean when I say "reliable accounts" of paranormal experience.

By refusing to say "black lives matter" and instead just keep saying "all lives matter" you haven't really said much, except to deny or ignore something that needs addressing. — jorndoe

You're arguing from ignorance there. I haven't "refused" anything. Please read my posts before butting in. It was a reply to @Banno's unfounded charge that by linking BLM with China I somehow thought that racial equality is not a worthy cause. Both of you are totally wrong and you're deliberately distorting what people are saying which is what far-left activists usually do. No different from Nazis. That's why you call people "reactionary", i.e. "enemy".

Well, indeed, you have nothing worth listening to — Banno

Likewise.

Additionally, can a person choose their belief? You are either convinced something is the case or you are not. If fear is your reason for non-belief, then you are choosing a position - to me this seems untenable. — Tom Storm

People change from one religion or political system to another all the time. And that involves choice. Why people choose something is a different matter. But the question was whether atheists hope that there is no God. You only hope something is not there when you're afraid of it. Otherwise you wouldn't care.

The fact is that I've never heard the word "reactionary" except in a political context and what you're saying seems to confirm that this is how it was intended in which case we have nothing to say to each other.

I only ever mention my cog. psych. master's to counter fatuous asides like this one and ad hominem insinuations such as "fear" as a motive for holding one position or another. — 180 Proof

Unfortunately, your cog. psych. doesn't counter anything apart from your own fallacies. The "ad hominems" are in your head. And you are again claiming that atheists feel no hope or fear, which rather contradicts your own spurious claims.

So you mean it in a Marxist or far-left sense then. And that's why I'm not interested in BLM.

I have made a claim as well. I have claimed that you have not supported your claim. My claim is testable; had you offered support for theory, it would appear in the two pages of post history here on this board. That can be scanned in minutes. Such a scan reveals a lack of support for your claim. — InPitzotl

You are delusional. I don't need to support anything and I don't care about your claims. I told you many times you're wasting your time.

I don't know what you mean by "reactionary". If you mean someone to be stabbed in the leg or have his skull smashed by a gang of far-left thugs, it is one thing. If it means something else it is another. You aren't saying which.

I don't see how either genuine representative or participatory democracy are akin to either of those things, but, whatever. — thewonder

If someone doesn't see something it doesn't mean it's impossible or it isn't true. But I think "whatever" is probably the word.

it's a reactionary comment. The Humpty Dumpty Defence won't cut it — Banno

I've never heard that used of a comment except in a Marxist or far-left context. Obviously, we are from different villages or parts of the world. But that isn't my fault.

If responding to a comment means "reacting" and makes a person "reactionary" then everybody responding to a post is reactionary.

But as I said, "reactionary" can mean different things to different people and can have different results in different circumstances. In some cases, if you called someone "reactionary" or "counterrevolutionary" or "Nazi", that person could be dead before you know it. So you need to be careful when you label people.

Words mean different things to different people. I asked you if you meant "reactionary" in the Marxist sense illustrated above.

You're not saying "my opinion is backed by this psychology study". — InPitzotl

Neither are you. If a degree in cognitive psych doesn't help you prove your case then what's the point? How can you demand of others what you yourself are unable to provide?

And I don't need to defend anything. I don't feel I'm under attack at all and I'm not attacking anyone. You're barking at the wrong tree.

That's why it might be useful to clarify what is meant by "reactionary". It wasn't me who used that term.

It's got a particular meaning in Marxist literature. Hence my question.

"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon — authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists” F Engels, “On Authority”, Almanaco Republicano, 1874

Well, you need to explain what you mean by "reactionary". If you mean "reactionary" in the Marxist sense of "counterrevolutionary", i.e. someone who is to be eliminated by revolutionaries, then I must object to that label.

"If the forces of democracy take decisive, terroristic action against the reaction from the very beginning, the reactionary influence will already have been destroyed” Marx & Engels, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, May 1850

How is that "reactionary" ?

Does Chinese money mean black lives no longer matter? — Banno

All lives matter. And it isn't a black movement. Most people that get involved are white at least where I live. It isn't only Chinese money. It isn't my type of movement, that's all.

My reading is this: — InPitzotl

Yeah, I know what your reading is but if it's wrong it's wrong. You can't make a wrong right. So, what's your agenda? Why not say something that makes sense for a change and then we carry on the conversation like two grown ups instead of resorting to kindergarten tricks that don't lead anywhere. You haven't even convinced yourself so how on earth do you think you can convince others???

Why all of the tricks? Why the gaslighting attempts? What's so wrong with just supporting the claims you made? Because you can't that's why. And your degree in cognitive psych just can't help you. Maybe you should get some other degree and try again.

And why are you using that weird name if you've got nothing to hide?

Why, when the fundamental qualms that I have with society already are not resolved, should I go for another way of organizing it? — thewonder

To resolve those qualms. But you don't have to. You can always join the Communist Party or the Taliban. Or just leave it.

No. I'm saying they have links to Communist China according to the reports. That doesn't make the whole movement communist. Only that it is being used by Communist governments and groups.

I'm not saying it is a communist movement. I've been on their demos myself, not anymore though. Most participants are just decent ordinary folk, lots of gullible and (understandably) frustrated students but the leadership and some file and rank elements are really dodgy. Plus all these movements can and do get infiltrated by interests with the means and knowledge how to use them for their own agendas, unfortunately.

Of course I realize atheists have hopes and fears. They're just people — InPitzotl

Exactly. So why deny it? You said that degrees in cognitive psych prove that to be untrue. Which is simply not true. So, you're contradicting yourself.

...said with an apparently straight face...?

Again, is this satire? It seems not. — Banno

Imarn Ayton, one of the organizers of BLM rallies in the UK, has admitted that the BLM movement has been hijacked by far-left activists who believe in "smashing capitalism and abolishing the police".

BLM is not only being used by domestic extremists but also by foreign powers like China who share the agenda of the British and American Far Left. BLM activism is being backed by foreign powers such as Communist China.

China’s intelligence apparatus United Front Work Department a.k.a. “United Front”, that runs interference in Western countries, has been running a large-scale social media campaign and other covert operations in support of Black Lives Matter and similar movements as part of its efforts to amplify racial unrest and destabilize target countries.

- "The New China Syndrome", Newsweek, 06.10.11.2020

A report of 10 March released by the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) shows that China's ally Iran, a major sponsor of Islamic terrorism, is another foreign power exploiting racial unrest in Western countries, "using overt and covert messaging and cyber operations" to "sow division and exacerbate societal tensions".

Black Lives Matter co-founder is being funded by group linked to the Chinese Communist Part – Daily Mail

There is an fact an epidemic of bad policing in the US. Some of it is racial but most of it isn't. Cops kill defenseless and undeserving whites more than they do blacks; although on a per capita basis, they kill more blacks. You can make a case either way. The racialization of bad policing makes it impossible to effectively address the problem. — fishfry

I definitely agree with that. It's a shame that in the 21st century people aren't rational enough to solve policing problems peacefully and without bringing culture and race wars into it. Plus I hear that BLM is being funded by Chinese organizations linked to the Communist Party of China on top of having links to Nation of Islam and other extremist groups.

A proper, rational response to a challenge is to give support. You're not doing that. Your response to a challenge is to try to attack the challengers, not support your views. — InPitzotl

I haven't noticed anyone "attacking you" at all so I've no idea what you're talking about. As I said, you're wasting your time. Claiming that atheists have no hopes or fears is just irrational. They would need to be a very special kind of people for that to be the case. Even you ought to realize that. But never mind.

You're as religiously well-read, dude, as you're philosophically ignorant and fallacious (though, to your credit, not disingenuous). — 180 Proof

What's there to be disingenuous about? And what "ad hominems"? I actually defended you when someone said you should be banned. I'm not like you, you know.

As for your "degree in cognitive psych" we can see of what value that is in proving your point.

That's OK. No problem. As I said, I didn't follow the trial. But from I've heard there were a few inconsistencies in the prosecution case. For example, at least before the trial, they were saying that Floyd started experiencing breathing difficulties after the police officer kneeled on him. But there was a video in which Floyd was already agitated and kept saying "I can't breathe" even before the police even touched him. And he ended up on the street after the officers put him in the car because he got out and that was when they pinned him down. Obviously, he shouldn't have ended up dead but I can't say I'm on either side because I don't know enough details, I just remember thinking that the video didn't match what the news presenter was saying and I thought that was a bit odd.

.psychologists corroborate your story. You're being disingenuous. — InPitzotl

You don't get it, do you? I meant a professional psychologist not someone holding a degree in psychology. As I said, anyone can have a degree in anything. That doesn't mean anything. Marx had a degree in philosophy but that didn't even get him a job. He had to take up journalism instead.

Not the place to discuss this case, but I see you didn't actually follow the details of the trial. I suggest you do so. — fishfry

Unfortunately, I didn't follow the trial either. Would you care to clarify that a bit for those of us who haven't?

Talking out of your ass, Apollodorus, is a condition called "logorrhea", there's medicine for that – dialectics — 180 Proof

Well, if that's what your "degree in cognitive psych" amounts to, calling everyone else sick, then I'm afraid it only proves my point. So, you needn't bother.

And if by "dialectics" you mean Marxism, I don't need that, thank you very much. Have you tried it on yourself? Perhaps you should. "Physician heal thyself" as they say. That's what you took up psychology for, isn't it?

Sorry, but you're running all over the place. What is on the table is that 180 Proof's degree in psychology is relevant to this:
Ask psychologists and they'll tel you.
— Apollodorus
You offered a pretense of a rebuttal to this, but none of it had to do with what's on the table. — InPitzotl

There is nothing to be sorry about. You are entitled to your views and others are also entitled to their own views.

In my view, holding a "degree in cognitive psych" has nothing to do with anything.

I disagree with your statement. You haven't proved that a degree in psych makes any difference to anything. And you haven't convinced anyone.

You did try, which is fair enough. But you failed and that is that. What more can I say?

Charles Manson was blamed and imprisoned for actions he himself did not commit. He’s actually quoted as saying “… you are as much responsible for the Vietnam war as I am for killing these people,” at his trial.

Now, although not so in the past, it is deemed unreasonable to blame music/musicians for things like suicides and school shootings. However, video games have become a substitute scapegoat in recent times.

Trump was blamed for the Capital riots. — Pinprick

There is a difference between being personally culpable for a crime or being led by others to commit a crime and being blamed for a crime that you haven't committed.

In Trump's case, no criminal culpability can be found for the Capitol riots. Politicians use terms like "fight" all the time. Political speeches may in some cases, be deemed "inflamatory", but it's very difficult to infer criminal culpability from that alone. We can't tell beyond reasonable doubt what Trump's intentions were on that day. Therefore, no criminal culpability can be established on the available evidence. Fresh incriminating evidence may still surface at some point in the future, but right now the evidence seems insufficient for successful prosecution and conviction. And in the Western justice system you're innocent until proven guilty.

It's also the way the media reported the riot as having left a "trail of blood", or "killed five people", etc. In fact it wasn't any more "bloody" than other violent riots. One victim (a rioter) was shot by the police, one or two police officers committed suicide, one rioter died as a result of some medical emergency and I'm not sure if they found a precise death cause or culprit for the death of the fifth (a police officer), in which case only one fatality can be directly linked to rioter action if at all. and even that may not have been intentional.

Personally, I'm not condoning either Trump or the rioters. But the fact is that we perceive everything through the lens of the media and the media can be very influential in forming public opinion. Each case needs to be judged on its own merits and after examining all the evidence, both pro and against.

Having said that, I've heard people say that America was founded through revolution and that people should have the right to launch an insurrection. After all, insurrection is just a large-scale riot. I'm sure even a regular riot in the right conditions might lead to insurrection and maybe people should have the right to rebel when they think that their rights are being taken away from them.

The question is, On what criteria do we decide when or when not a riot or insurrection is legitimate? What makes it legitimate, majority support, objective, or what?

If we say objective then we say that the ends justify the means. If we say majority support, then we say that the majority is always right. But none of these statements are absolute rules and both of them can be problematic. So, who decides and how? There's a problem for philosophy to solve.