I have no further wish to carry on any kind of discourse with a person that demonstrates so little respect for the members of this forum. — Sapientia

Who, not that.

IS the way of thinking employed here so different to that employed by idealists or Post modernists or anti-abortionists or second amendment advocates or even Trump supporters? This is why psychoceramics is of philosophical interest. — Banno

What do we say of those who can't see the flaw in lumping all who they disagree with into a single catagory of crackpottery and then identifying them with a poster child who they reject as wholeheartedly as you?

This is why psychoceramics is of philosophical interest.

Not so much. More like buying a car repair manual. It's cheaper to DIY.

Wearing nothing but TL's fat purple dance socks, here's what I'm reading:

Art is in the eye of the beholder I suppose, but my read on this one is spot on, and yours superficial. The child's imaginary friend disappeared when his childhood disappeared, but you get entirely diverted by the word "puff" and declare it an ode to marijauna.

Some say the song is about drugs and whatever, but to me it's clearly a sentimental song about little boys growing up.

Tiff, for you:

A dragon lives forever but not so little boys
Painted wings and giant rings make way for other toys

She was married when we first met
Soon to be divorced
I helped her out of a jam, I guess
But I used a little too much force

If your post was deleted because I made a complaint requesting it and if you were banned for your behaviour, how is change possible? — TimeLine

Now there's a shift in mission statement. Our purpose is therapeutic, to bring about personal change through philosophical debate. Would you propose a banning for someone who violated no rule, but for whom such a punishment would provide needed humility?

It just seems you're defining this board's purpose as aiming to provide psychological growth, which I can acknowledge might be a a tertiary byproduct, but not what I'd consider a primary goal. Regardless, interesting perspective.

I'm right leaning, and to be honest, am likely less tolerant than other mods, meaning some behavior allowed now would not be allowed if I were king. The point being, if you're prone to misbehavior, which includes rabble rousing, you would want as few conservatives on your jury as possible.

I do realize the importance, however, in having a jury with diverse worldviews, but you are sadly mistaken if you think I'll be more prone to protect you if we both happen to have voted for the same idiot for president.

A man walks into a bar with a bucket full of grammar rules and everything disintegrates.

True story.

As a moderator, I noted something missing in the poll, so I made a minor change.

At least that ended in a proper death.

I've often thought that the public discussion regarding problem posts and posters diverts us from our mission as a philosophy forum. It's of course really entertaining to see people going at each other's throats, and we can pat ourselves on the back and call ourselves transparent and open minded, but I really do think customer complaints ought not be aired publically. It turns this place into a soap opera.

What I'd expect if I thought my food too cold is a reasonable response ("I'm sorry sir, sushi is supposed to be raw," or "I'm sorry your food took 3 hours, have a free cannoli on the house."), not opening it up to debate and discussion to the other patrons about what proper customer service looks like.

I'm not opposed to soliciting feedback of course, and think a "suggestion box" would serve a purpose, but the public debate about post validity presents an assumption of democratic rule, which will only lead to frustration when the voters realize it simply isn't.

My son's up at UGA. I'm about 50 mins SW from there.

Here's my joke, and I don't know it yet because it's just now coming to me:

A man walks into a bar with a four foot 2 by 4 with a rusty nail jutting out the side. He's out of breath and sweating profusely. The smell of dog feces permeates the room. A beautiful princess sits down at the bar, naked except for the sock that covers her transexuality. A priest staggers in, completely wasted, openly weeping and putting pressure on the open wound in his leg. A horse then walks in, and the bartender says, "why the long face"?

Pretty good joke I think.

What city in Georgia? I'm far enough north of the city that I'd call parts semi-rural. Or, God's country. You could call it that too.

I'm out to make the world substantially better, by promoting communication and mutual understanding. — unenlightened

How's that going for you?

So the philosophical/ethical question is, whether or not harming an organism which lives within the human being, in a beneficial symbiotic relationship, constitute harming the human body. — Metaphysician Undercover

You're use of the term "beneficial" makes moot the preliminary paragraph. If the poison I give you sickens you, it is immoral to give it, regardless of whether it damages your gut flora, your kidneys, or whether it just irritates your throat. If it benefits you, it's not.

Families survived because granny looked after the kids while mum and dad worked. — Banno

As tradition had it, dad went off to work while mom cared for the kids. That granny (as opposed to paw paw) was at home is evidence that that was her traditional role.

I don't harken back to the old days of relegating women to the domestic role, but see that as a shared role. I do believe, though, that the drive to work harder, which results in less parenting, is less driven by survival needs than it is consumerism and the desire for more stuff. The material expectations of the average guy have increased dramatically in my lifetime.

(I don't want this to be confrontational by the way. The main point is for us to listen to you.) — Baden

No worries. If someone posts something controversial, I'll delete it.

That's your elitism and your moral degeneration of the country. — fishfry

And when the British empire dominated, it owed it's success to egalitarianism and a disdain of elitism? Which monarch do you think was the most common?

America is great and has greater days ahead. Counting it out doesn't change things.

I'm writing a book. Here it is so far. I think it has a nice flow:

She so badly wanted that new iron, but as she stared at his gonads, she thought to herself there must be a better way.

If the pillow won't work, maybe the plastic wrap will, although it's so hard to get it to tear cleanly while he's thrashing about.

I can't be expected to find safety pins at 5:00 a.m., especially while I'm vacuuming out the sticky mounds of hair ground into the carpet.

But if I don't cover his arm completely, the dogs will bring it to the playground again and I'll have to give another explanation.

Thoughts?

What does it mean to be real?

Aren't these qualities dependent on you, and what the ice cream cone is in it self quite different. — Cavacava

What the ice cream cone is in itself is an incoherent concept.

The thread is about the last word here, on this thread. Not the last word at the end of the world or even your life. — Sir2u

This is what you want the last word at the end of the world to be? And not me either, but I'm talking about that last word, but now this, now this. Aaaahhh!

I was at a party and someone said shit to my bitch, and I was like wuuut no you diii-uuu, and just as I showed him my sharpened penis that I had to a fine point from rubbing it along the concrete, dude pulls out a gun, jams the shit in my ear (deep in the aural canal near the cochlear and shit), and I'm twisting like a mother fucker trying to prick him with my pokey pecker. He squeezes off a round and my brain goes spraying on the stainless steel refrigerator (Whirlpool 800987 with water and ice dispenser) like a spray of glass cleaner.

I'm just saying I've had a hard day, so let me at least get the big piece of chicken. I mean God damn. At least that.

My point: If fate should have it that you will be the chosen soul to have the last word, don't strive for profound or even loving, but instead for the most divine of all traits. Creativity. The first thing God did was create, after all. Make it your last.

I have been able to build a gun entirely out of rawhide. It shoots frozen marrow pellets. Not only am I able to get it through the metal detector, my puppy Fred Barkowitz will destroy the evidence for me. Even if he doesn't eat the whole thing, no investigator is going to pick up a slimy chewed rawhide. That's way nasty.

If you grew up where I did (I lived under a dumpster where grey dumpster stew would pour into my mouth), you'd understand why I needed a rawhide gun in the airport. I used to fight the rats for food back then, but we fought with our words, not our fists, because we weren't philistines.

One thing we'd calmly discuss back then is what the fuck that last sentence is doing in this already fucked up post. This level of post unpredictabilty further proves the lunacy of climate change (as if we know which way the next poetic wind will blow). Proof of point: I'm standing on my head next time the Pope hands out his crackers at a football game. That'll stop the molestation.

Take everything in your head, stir it up, and piss it out your mouth I always say. Always.

Our understanding nature is not the same as nature, — Cavacava

Our understanding of nature is indistinguishable from nature.

One of my favorite experiences is to walk outside when the weather is really cold - low single digits or below 0 F. The air is very dry and has a bright look and sound to it. The sound of a jet flying 30,000 feet overhead is sharp and brittle. One of the things that makes me think climate change is real is the rarity of these types of days compared to the 1970s and 1980s. — T Clark

The average temperature change since the 70s is less than 1 degree Fahrenheit. So now when you bake in the 1 degree winter heat, you can reminisce about the frigid 0 degree winters of your youth.

If I say "yes" (to seeking a just punishment) all the criminals in the world will think they're justified in punishing their victims, because their punishment is just (in their minds) - hence more violence. — Agustino

Most justice systems (Western ones to be sure) place little to no authority on the victim to seek punishment. The authority of the prosecution rests with the state, not the victim. Any person personally or emotionally affected would be disqualified from dispensing justice.

The point being that forgiveness and punishment rest in different people's hands, meaning you can openly forgive your oppressor for whatever reason you want, but the District Attorney won't care.

Additionally, the violence exacted by the state as punishment on the victim typically leads to the suppression of additional violence because when a community believes the punishment is fair, they respect the outcome as opposed to rebelling against it. Otherwise, you'd have the absurd conclusion that the eradication of societal violence would be achieved by the release of our most violent criminals.

I'd also point out that just like the state monopolizes the power of punishment, the victim ought monopolize the power of forgiveness, meaning no one can forgive you for your sins against me other than me. That's at least the rule in Judaism, and I suspect it's the rule of other systems as well.

I agree. The moon landing was a giant step for mankind.

I found this article from 1899 that addresses your question. I didn't read it. I just wished to show my Google mastery. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27699089

A different view of forgiveness:

"ONE year ago today, a shooter entered a one-room Amish school in Nickel Mines, Pa., dismissed all but 10 girls, and fired at them execution-style, killing five before shooting himself.

Within hours, the Amish community forgave the killer and his family. "

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.csmonitor.com/layout/set/amphtml/2007/1002/p09s02-coop.html

Something truly inspiring really.

Have I forgiven her because of my own experiences that enabled me to understand her better or have I forgiven her because she acknowledged her wrongdoing? — TimeLine

Those things and because you love her.

That's simply reifying ape behaviour into a concept. — Banno

And we reify the abstract behaviors of a wrench into the concrete term "wrench." Such is the purpose of language. The questions are: (1) did the wrench preexist the "wrench," and (2) is the ape's knowledge of the wrench of a different type (as opposed to degree) than the person's?

I've never understood how #1 couldn't be answered in the affirmative, but that's your thesis.

Regarding #2, you would hold that a languageless mechanical savant, gifted in nothing but the ability to repair all that is broken, who is a maestro with everything wrench like, knows less of the wrench in his hand than a helpless child who is simply able to recite the word "wrench" when his father holds various wrenches in front of him?

What does our child know of the wrench in our savant's hand than does of our savant other than that wrenches have names?

Show that one can use a spanner and an adjustable wrench and a pipe wrench does not tell us how each of these is related in such a way that the one word can be applied to all. That requires language. — Banno

You're just making up distinctions. An ape gets hungry and seeks food. It has a concept of food without a word for food and understands a similarity between bananas and berries in that both satisfy hunger. In fact, to understand that one banana is similar to another banana is to understand a relation between two distinct objects. The ape gets sick from eating a mushroom, so he eats no more mushrooms. Such requires appreciating mushroomness, the abstract notion of mushrooms, yet all without language.

Hanover seems to think that an ape that uses a wrench to fix a leaking pipe knows what a wrench is. — Banno

You seem to think that you know what a wrench is. An ape knows it knocks bananas out of trees. You know it tightens the nut on your drawer handle. A mechanic knows how it replaces an alternator. Perhaps an engineer knows something about the wrench I know nothing about. Either we say that unless you know everything about wrenches then you now nothing about wrenches, or we say if you know something about wrenches, then you know, in part, what wrenches are.

Do you know more about wrenches than an ape? Sure. Is part of your superior knowledge the result of the knowledge expanding power of language? Of course. Does this mean that knowledge of the wrench is dependent on language? Of course not.

It's all a matter of degree.

Yeah, you're supposed to say, "what's updog?" to which I say, "not much dog, how bout you?"