Hence, I am assuming, your argument would proceed to conclude that since beliefs are not always reflected in action, the only thing they could be is some sort of mental object.

But this is not a very good argument; there may well be other things that would explain the oddities of belief. — Banno

Something else that needs exposition is the dynamics of belief. Beliefs are in a state of flux. They change over time, merge with each other, divide, become more or less distinct. — Banno

That's a great deal of similarity to the beetle in the box. — Banno

They have no concept called belief. So part of the problem is that our talk of these beliefs is a necessary function of language, which in turn leads to the assumption that the belief itself, as shown in the animal/human, is a necessary function of language. It is a necessary function of language if we are to express beliefs using language, but that doesn't mean that an act cannot show a belief apart from a linguistic understanding. — Sam26

In what States do I truly believe my cat hungry? I say 1 and 2. Do you say 2 and 4? — Hanover

the explanations are post hock and sufficient. — Banno

But we keep repeating this discussion. It seems that you will not move away from the notion of a belief as a thing in a mind. But for me that view makes no sense. What counts is not a thing in Jack's minds, but what he does: meowing and staring at the bowl and following me around and so on, which all stops when I fill the bowl. These actions are not mental tables and chairs; they are Jack's interactions with the world. — Banno

Yogi's can master the practice of meditation so that they can voluntarily lower their various biological markers of wakefulness (heart rate, respiration, etc.) -- if reports can be believed. — Bitter Crank

1. Add a rule: You're not allowed to transfer ownership to the State. That in itself is a limitation to property rights so seems a bad choice given the framework.
2. Add a rule: A duty on the State to minimise public ownership. That could work (and raises practical issues but let's leave that for now).
3. Amend the ideology: it's not about private ownership but about respect of ownership in itself regardless of whether this is public or private. This could work too. — Benkei

Obviously not. To ask is already to know that. Unfortunately, designing wheelchairs is less well paid, so you have to decide how much your moral integrity is worth to you, and whether you want to sell it at any price. — unenlightened

Immortality. Not immorality — Benkei

The bourgeoisie, the owners of capital, may profess the morality of Christianity, or another religion, but in general find the demands of an otherworldly faith to be of little value, except for public relations purposes. Naked capitalism is the ruthless pursuit of wealth. — Bitter Crank

Can we derive a morality from capitalist ideology or is it an amoral ideology? If we can, what are the ethical rules? — Benkei

What are the ethical rules we can derive from this idea? I'm only going to mention two for now, to see what other people think is relevant since I'm enquiring here not sharing my rock-solild opinion.
- things become available for ownership either through trade or production
- respect private ownership
- respect transfer of ownership — Benkei

A first question, what happens to a transfer of private ownership to the State? Ethical rules say ok but the ideology itself resists this. So it has the possibility of an inherent contradiction if enough people would want to transfer their ownership to the State. Unlikely at the national level. On the other hand, this seems to be the self-evident method for most families. We pool our resources and spend collectively, parents are generally trusted to make decisions on behalf of the family unit. — Benkei

Another question: what is meant with private? Keeping aside for a moment the possible utility of corporations, there doesn't seem to be any reason why a State should promote corporations and allow for shareholding and limited liability. In fact, I suffer a higher liability acting as a person (in principle unlimited) than a corporation. It can also damage the first principle to respect private ownership. If I cause damages as a private person, I must repair those damages. If a corporation does it, it will only have to do so to the extent it has capital - once that's exhausted the damaged party has no recourse and his private ownership is not fully respected. — Benkei

Another question: what is the effect of the basic immortality of corporations? Instinctually, I'd suspect there's some equilibrium with a large concentration of property and means of production in the hands of corporations, shares in the hands of elites and consumer goods for everyone else. — Benkei

Considering the above I'm tempted to argue that if you're in favour of capitalism you'd have to argue against the protections afforded to corporations. — Benkei

My first girlfriend's parents hated me, so it would have been strange to get married to her - I don't know how one should respond in such cases. — Agustino

I agree. An individual still can't make a decision out of their free will to change their gender, just like they can't change their sexuality for example, or opinion or feelings about anything. — BlueBanana

do you object? I said generally, and I do hold that their will be exceptions. but for the most part I'd say testosterone leads to a decrease in these traits, and so the less testosterone you have, the more these traits increase. As women generally don't produce testosterone, it would follow that they would be much more open, less aggressive, and more agreeable than their male counterparts. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Being female, generally leads to more openness, less aggression, being more agreeable, etc ( — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Language traditionalists only really have a point if the new use entails unsuccessful communication (for example if I choose to use the word "dog" to refer to cats without informing you), but I don't think that holds at all in this case. — Michael

So what of someone with XY gonadal dysgenesis? They have XY chromosomes but female genitalia (albeit with streak gonads rather than ovaries or testes).

Man? Woman? Both? Neither? — Michael

Wonderful sense of community in America where everyone is so afraid of each other that many would rather have a civil war than give up their guns. And why are they so afraid? Well, because everyone has a gun, of course. — Baden

Doesn't seem to be saying that property can only be taken for public use. Just seems to say that if it is taken for public use then it must be compensated. — Michael

We are not the United States. We are not trapped by our own rhetoric into believing that we are no more than an agglomeration of individuals, a temporarily paused anarchy. — Banno

First of all, law systems are increasingly unable to cope with the sheer amount of legal disputes. This has driven up costs, making court cases and the legal profession more expensive, due to high demand and a closed system of accreditation (requiring patronage, membership to the bar and similar barriers), and consequently inaccessible to many. — Benkei

Statutes of limitation further limit which claims can be brought before court; we can only pursue a claim for a certain period of time. — Benkei

If we then remember the adagium "it takes money to make money", it is clear that a basic inequality sets in where, within a given State, blacks and women (and other minorities) continue to be at a socio-economic disadvantage; simply because they are not afforded the same opportunities as dictated in large part by their socio-economic background. Contrary to popular belief, the most influential predictor of socio-economic mobility is not a person's education level. Instead, the strongest correlation between a person's life chances in society and economic mobility is how economic status and inheritance are transmitted across generations. The children of well-off parents simply tend to receive better schooling and benefit from material, cultural and genetic inheritances as researched by Bowles and Gintin in The inheritance of inequality. — Benkei

Aside from a broader concept of responsibility, there is also an asymmetry to the counter argument; why accept all the benefits through inheritance as a moral entitlement but not accept moral obligation towards moral claims from the past? In other words, from a moral standpoint to believe entitlements exists but obligations do not, when they stem from the same occurence, is entirely arbitrary. — Benkei

Well, there's a few books about it. — Banno

Sure you can play the game of pedant and claim confusion or evil daemon or whatever you like. There is no reason hereabouts to think I am confused - apart from Hanover wanting to suport an aesthetic that says we ought not be certain. — Banno

Here's a basis for an epistemology: Some statements are true. And there are some statements which it is unreasonable to doubt. — Banno

So for you, at the moment, the question is why shouldn’t I be certain I am in Femantle? — Banno

Certainty is a type of belief. I’m writing this in Fremantle while eating grilled local sardines.

That’s not just probable, but certain. — Banno

There are no genes identified at this point that contribute to intelligence. — yatagarasu