Could it be that our loss of faith is ''causing'' a failure in our ability to discover new truths about our world? — TheMadFool

Assuming your hypothetical true, that most scientific discoveries were made by religious people, there is no basis to conclude there is any causative link between those two facts, considering as you move back in time most people were religious. I'd assume that as the stove top hat fell into disuse, you saw the same changes occur in scientific discovery, but I doubt one had to do with the other.

As a somewhat relevant aside, the hypothetical is false as well. Technological advances are occuring at a faster pace now.
www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/scottgottlieb/2015/06/17/the-quickening-pace-of-medical-progress-and-its-discontents/amp/

Once all the ghosts left town, the town was oxymoronically a ghost town.

The first thing I'd explain to them is that all language is a crude symbolic representation of a thought, therefore making the distinction between figurative and literal one more of degree than type. Some may disagree, and I'd allow hearty debate to follow. Once you feel sufficient discussion has been permitted, I'd explain how to put the staples in the staplers or whatever it was you sought to explain.

Say to us what you said to them and then we'll be the judge of whether it's you or if it's them. If it's them, we'll sympathize. If it's you, will ridicule.

It seems if it's your job to explain something, and the people you're to explain it to don't understand it, then you've failed in your job. You can't blame them for your failure.

I believe the answer to the rhetorical question of Mathew 16:26 of "What is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul, or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?" is nothing.

Tomorrow — Maw

Your birthday has to be for a date certain, not a day relative to another day. By setting you birthday to tomorrow, it never comes, but it's always nearby, filling you with eternal excited anticipation.

The ultimate problem was that the journalist, Babchenko, sacrificed truth in order to apprehend a criminal, which I think is a perversion of principled journalism, in which journalists put their lives on the line in order to report the truth. — Maw

A few things. First, I don't believe the reporter here was acting in his capacity as a reporter when he worked with the police, so I don't see it as an issue of journalistic integrity. It was just ordinary citizen integrity of a man who happened to be a journalist. It wasn't like he was trying to lie in order to create a story.

I do not believe there is a suicide pact that all journalists must sign before becoming journalists. Your right and duty to preserve your own life goes beyond your duty to protect the general reputation of the media. I would think that if this journalist used deceit to save the lives of other citizens you would allow it. I don't see why his life is worth less than others.

You also overlook the fact that undercover journalism has been used for years and has exposed all sorts of wrongs and provided insight into people's lives we'd never have known about. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undercover_journalism

I think he wife would disgree. She didn't know it was fake when it was reported. — Michael

Maybe she would disagree, maybe not. The ruse could have saved his life.

Regardless, I think it's beside the point. The concern of the OP was whether this "fake news" story further eroded the integrity of the press, and I don't think it does because it wasn't orchestrated by the press nor was the press knowingly involved in the scheme. It was orchestrated by law enforcement entirely, which is something law enforcement does often. Had law enforcement contacted the media and gotten the media to report a fake report for the purposes of catching a criminal, where it was shown that the government/police and the media were working in unison, then I would see that as a problem of blurring the distinction between the press and the government. The press is supposed to be a check on the power of the government and we don't want them working as a team, but I don't see any knowing involvement from the press, other than in this instance the victim happened to be someone who worked in the media..

I see no problem with it. The media did not fabricate news nor participate in the sting. The man threatened happened to be employed by the media, but this was not a news outlet working with the government to provide fake news. This is no different than the police going undercover or setting up deceptive operations for crime prevention. It's standard police practice.

A The empirical data is overwhelming in support of conservative giving versus liberal, with books having been written on it. We could get into a real breakdown in the data I suppose if we wanted to.

Then why don't they refuse entitlements? — praxis

To the extent someone is hypocritical, I suppose it's for the same reason anyone is.

Not uncaring, hoodwinked. — praxis

I think both sides hold similar opinions of the others. Some think there opponents are malicious, others think they're too dumb to know better.

That's a recitation specifically of the Protestant position (grace through faith alone), although not true of Christianity generally.. At any rate, I don't think there's a trend in modern Protestant thought that entirely disregards good works and permits adherents to flaunt selfishness because all they have to do is repent on their death bed.

In other words: religion stops people from caring about changing the status quo or the conditions of this world, because they rely on the promise of the next one. — NKBJ

The next world to Christians is either heaven or hell, which would mean there would be an overwhelming reason to do right in this world. It's not like a reincarnation based system where they can just worry about getting it right next time. Their rewards or punishments would be eternal, so I don't follow where it would work out very well if they just threw their hands up at all the suffering around them and said they couldn't wait to get to heaven to get away from all this.

I know that everyone has their own combination of opinions but I am interested in this particular connection and why is it so popular. — Jacykow

The religious right does believe in personal responsibility as well as charity in terms of helping one's fellow man. They are in fact more charitable by all measure than their liberal counterpart, from the amount they contribute to charity, the amount they volunteer in their communities, and the extent to which they reach out to those in need. Their disagreement lies in what they see as the role of government. The duty to help others derives as an inherent duty and it is not fulfilled through forced taxation and forced redistribution of wealth. Interpreting the right as uncaring is a leftist opinion not accepted by the right.

I do think the left has an underlying philosophical problem with trying to deny the sacred yet to declare that humans are sacred.

A term often used to describe racists is "ignorant," which describes a lack of knowledge or understanding, implying education is the cure. There are those and there are those who do know better, and while they are of different sorts perhaps spiritually, and they might be deserving of different levels of hell, they unfortunately can exact the same suffering on their victims, so I am reluctant to give those who simply know no better a full pass.

So I do think we ought not treat the curable fully as monsters, but we ought not fool ourselves into thinking that none are monsters.

Maybe my dog barked and I didn't hear you right.

It does fit with what you said, but it's not an ad hom fallacy.

That's a different fallacy of drawing specific conclusions from prior facts. Remove ad hom, for example: My dog usually barks on Wednesday. It is Wednesday. Therefore my dog barked. That's fallacious.

Real example of conversation in another thread: Israel justifies attacks on Gaza because they say Hamas was breaching the barrier. Your response: If true, the attacks might be justified, but you question the source, so it might be unjustified.

Ad hom as to facts is ok. Ad hom as to reasoning not.

You have to draw a distiction between the argument and the facts. To attack an argument on the basis of character is a fallacy. To attack one's veracity pertaining to their rendition of facts based upon their character is not.

If Trump tells you he's more popular than Obama because he got more votes than Obama, and you reject that argument because you disbelieve his statement of the facts because he's known to misstate facts, that's not a fallacy. If, though, you reject the argument because you don't believe vote tally determines popularity because Trump said it, that'd be an ad hom.

Your failure to give my criticism credibility is based on me being me, which means if I signed my comments by a different name, you'd consider their substance differently. Ad hominum means "to the person," as opposed to the substance. If Hitler says that 2+2=4, its truthfulness is unaffected by his being Hitler. Perhaps the truth of facts he might convey would bei questionable due to lack of veracity, but not any logical assessment.

For example, should you reject the above because you find me not credible, that'd be ad hom. If I tell you you're immature based upon agreed upon facts and you reject it as coming from me, that'd be ad hom.

I think that's true and I see it shut down a lot of debate over controversial issues. It's the problem with political correctness. If someone challenges say abortion rights, it's argued they must have no respect for women for example. Well, maybe, or maybe they have a view about life that is just very different.

It doesn't change that it was. I'll just keep repeating the same thing as long as you think it necessary to keep saying otherwise.

This is the false dichotomy fallacy.

Yeah, it was and is ad hom.

As for "handling criticism maturely" it shouldn't surprise you to find out that, after the things you have said to me and about me over the past few weeks, I don't give your criticism much credibility. — T Clark

Sounds like yet another irrelevant ad hom.

As such we are left with thought, nothing more and nothing less. The question then follows what is to be done with this thing... thought. — Marcus de Brun

And so you've proved that thought alone exists. To whom?

Politeness is dictatorial: you can't say this or that! If you break the rules, then you're a naughty boy. Naughty boys cause a stir, and sometimes they do this simply by speaking unfiltered truth. — Sapientia

If your objective is to communicate that the emporer wears no clothes, you will be insulting possibly, but your comments will be ignored if you make them so vulgarly that no one one takes them seriously. The opposite can be true too, where someone recites bullshit so eloquently that it's taken seriously when it shouldn't be.

I knew what you meant. So, you seriously think that me calling you a name is worse than you condescendingly insulting me because I take the forum seriously? Civility? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it does. — T Clark

It was unquestionably less civil to call someone a dick than it was for someone to claim your position was sad. The former was bullying, the latter perhaps insensitive. It did seem though from his response that he was unoffended by your middle school taunt, yet by your response it was clear you were incapable of handling criticism maturely.

Sounds like she was just hurling whatever insult came to her at the moment. Had you been Asian, she'd have called you that, fat then that. Like with me, it's "get out of the street you amazing person." People can be so hateful.

I couldn't decipher a question here.

I don't remember that being the question. I thought it was some people moaning about the kids these days. Some people think you're a bit of a dick - get over it. — unenlightened

Maybe go back and read this thread. That became a specific question and so I responded. And whether people think I'm a dick, that was only something you brought up and not something I'm terribly worried about. This post is just another in a series of unhelpful and hostile quips of yours. Have at it. Let us all know you're annoyed.

I'm not a prude, far from it. Aristocrat style jokes, tho, which consist of nothing but offensive insalubrities stringed together... There's nothing funny in there. At least dead baby jokes tend to have a punchline. :confused: — Akanthinos

This isn't a who's funnier contest. The question was whether certain jokes should be censored. Until you say that aristocrat jokes must be censored, we have no point of contention.

There are a number of issues as I see it being raised here:

1. When posters get into arguments it's distressing,
2. Sexual jokes are unsavory to some,
3. the Shoutbox is a free for all.

1. The mods do regulate abusive conduct between parties and if you feel you're being abused, then you should speak up. My own view has been that I believe there should be as little regulation as possible of discussion because we're all adults and can handle ourselves. I have been attacked in all sorts of ways, some deserved, some not (or maybe so), and my general view has been that it shouldn't be moderated. There are parameters of acceptability and we have to maintain that, but I tend to object (in the mods section) to over-regulation more than under-regulation, but I'm just one vote and take very little personally. Differing views among mods keeps things moderate. I really am hesitant to intervene based upon an insult alone without there being some clear line being crossed (like racism or other specific rule being violated). In prior conversations with mods, I have objected that I felt the tone of the forum was growing too gentle, too protected, almost corporate, where I felt I was a customer service representative making sure no one was upset by another's comments. I didn't like it. We need an edge. But, as I said, I'm but one vote, and I am very protective against bullying of any sort.

2. I agree that outside the non-philosophical areas I shouldn't post something about having sex with a fellow poster's mother (see how gently I described that in this thread), but within the Shoutbox it's pretty much an open discussion about whatever. In all truth, much of what I have currently read in the Shoutbox are really poor attempts at humor, with a current trend with the posters acting as if they were all animals. That discussion is non-offensive sure, but it's right out of Romper Room. I obviously don't believe it should be moderated, but my point is that moderating based upon sense of humor is fraught with all sorts of problems. What I will say, though, is that I agree that no one should use humor to demean or bully.

3. The Shoutbox is the free for all area. It just is. There is a good argument that could be made that there's too much free for all in this Forum and that we should focus our efforts on real philosophical issues outside the Shoutbox. I do agree with that actually. To the extent someone wants the Shoutbox rated G and not R (and it's not X), I suppose we could rearrange the furniture and create a Shoutbox G and a Shoutbox R and then sensibilities would be protected, but I question whether that's really needed.

To believe your own thought, to believe that what is true for you in your private heart is true for all men, that is genius. Speak your latent conviction, and it shall be the universal sense; for the inmost in due time becomes the outmost, and our first thought is rendered back to us by the trumpets of the Last Judgment.

When he says "genius" he doesn't mean like Einstein, he means something more like our essence.

I've always thought that "Self-Reliance" is the most radical intellectual statement possible. Makes "Cogito Ergo Sum" seem like "I tawt I taw a puddy tat." Trust yourself. Your thoughts. My original quote is the most radical statement of Emerson's radical position. — T Clark

I don't see Self-Reliance and the Cogito as comparable. The former falls within the realm of ethics, the latter metaphysics.

A parable is typically a fictitious story used to make a moral point, like the boy who cried wolf. The other posts in this thread are just observations, perhaps profound, but not really parables. .

Yep, but the thread itself is arguably a strawman too to the extent no one really believes rap to be philosophy, at least not of the sort we consider philosophy to be here, which means the appropriate response would be to weigh it as an art form. Decrying rap as a glorification of irresponsibility seems a predictible assessment one should expect, especially after it was just heralded as unmitigated genius.

I said what I'd do, which is to take the ride that seemed most fulfilling, but my decision wouldn't be based on one being more real than the other because the premise eliminates knowing that.

No it's not. It's mind blowingly deep. There is no way out of the Descartes evil genius thought experiment if you admit there really is an evil genius.

I'm saying how can you claim everything you know is false and then tell someone you have the magic pill to seeing reality? Wouldn't you necessarily question the reality of the magic pill? That being the case, just pick the ride you'd rather be on. You can't expect either to be more real or more authentic.