Back in the day, when most everyone were rural, and actually owned things of value, they used to say that city folk talked for a living. More and more people are city folk, and communication is more versatile than being a beast is these days. — Wosret

I am both a beast and talkative, thus representing a new breed of person: versatile, intelligent, charming, powerful, and overflowing with kindness. I also live right on the cusp of rural and urban, with one shoeless foot planted in the mud and the other adorned in a shoe of magnificent tassel planted on the finest Italian marble.

Gender words have nothing to do with communication, as it's clear that we all sufficiently communicated long before anyone objected to certain words being used. Prescriptive language, whether it be in the prescribed format of speech or the substantive meaning of words, all suffers from the same problems, namely that it elevates certain words over others and it artificially creates an etiquette onto speech instead of allowing it to naturally evolve through the speakers.

Sure, we all know that certain words are derogatory and words that once were not might become so, but that doesn't permit a particular person or group to just sort of demand that certain words not be spoken because they are derogatory to him (or her). I get that I'm no longer permitted to call out of wedlock children bastard children despite it being accurate and to the point, but since we as a society have evolved away from depriving bastards of ordinary rights due to their impure existence, it no longer makes sense within our community of speakers to continue to use that term except as a general personal attack.

The point is that we're annoyed when we're told (i.e. prescribed) a particular way we are to speak because no one has the right to tell us what we actually mean when we use certain words. I know that when I call Sally "she," I mean she has a vagina and nothing more. I don't mean that her struggles with her sexuality are unimportant or should be subject to ridicule. The fact that Sally is offended because I've not adopted Sally Speech is a Sally problem, not a Hanover problem. However, I will concede, at some point if Sally Speech becomes English, then I can either choose to confuse everyone (and likely offend everyone) with outdated Hanover Speech or I can get with the program and speak English.

At this point, Sally Speech is not English. It's just annoying.

What the OP is saying, which I think is generally true, is that there is no specific purpose we can attribute to our existence. Considering the secular, contemporary explanation for the existence of the universe is couched entirely in causal, scientific terms, it would make little sense to attempt to provide a teleological explanation for it.

That is, the universe arose through the big bang and that matter then formed in various random ways and then life arose and evolution did what it did, and here we are. How could you expect to derive a teleological explanation from that? That was never your inquiry anyway. You were asking the "how" question, not the "why" question.

Keep in mind, though, that we can in fact answer the why question just as we can answer the how question; it's just there is a limit to the answers we can give. We can never give a first cause answer whether we're speaking in terms of causality or teleology. Why is it more troubling that I cannot fully explain my reason for existence than it is I cannot fully explain how I came into existence? It's not like offering a vague explanation of the Big Bang that spontaneously occurred to eternally existing matter (whatever that might be) is any better a first cause explanation than simply asserting a first cause teleological explanation that I exist to fulfill my pre-existing eternal purpose (whatever that might be).

The rain falls because the clouds fill with the moisture that evaporated up into the air and it precipitates out. A meteorologist could provide cause after cause for how that happens, and at some point, he won't know. The rain falls because the plants need nourishment so that fruit will grow and animals will eat and so that animals will reproduce. I could keep giving teleological reasons, but at some point, I won't know.

You paint a lovely picture, — Sapientia

I do. Optimism, positivity, and patriotism are things Europeans can't understand (or stand) about Americans. What confuses and annoys them most is our belief in the rightness of everything we do. We call that faith.

What of efficiency and progress? I guess in your view they take a backseat to stability and certainty. Yet that doesn't address any underlying problems, it merely sets them aside. — Sapientia

Your question asks why a conservative doesn't wish to be more progressive. Obviously these are competing world views, although no one is entirely stagnant nor entirely progressive. Despite what you say, we do address our issues. It's not as if the US is in the dark ages or that life in the US is significantly different than life in Europe (other than it being more affordable and generally more consumer friendly).

Yes, we have a national religion, but c'mon Hanover, we both know that religion has a far greater political influence in the U.S. than the U.K. It influences laws regarding abortion and it influences homophobia in the political realm, like, for example, that appalling and notorious televised convention that Ted Cruz attended. That simply wouldn't happen over here. — Sapientia

There's a difference between what individuals do and what a legislature may require. In the UK, I'm guessing you have the whole gamut, from racist, homophobic skinheads to civil rights leaders. The same holds true in the US. I think we both agree (but am not sure) that all these folks have the right to exist and believe whatever they want without legal restriction. In some parts of the country, they try to pass laws limiting abortion (Texas), although in others they pass laws expanding homosexual rights (the Bay area). In no instance though, can any jurisdiction pass a law that violates the Constitution, so all homosexuals can marry, no one can be denied an abortion (within certain limitations), and no black person can be legally discriminated against.

Regardless, it's pretty clear that you could move to the US and do exactly what you do in the UK without fear of government restriction. It wouldn't be like if you moved to Saudi Arabia or something. It'd take you a few months to meet like minded folks here in the US, and you could go about advocating the same old nonsense you did while in the UK.

That may be so, but the Supreme Court does determine when the use of deadly force is reasonable, and some legal experts criticise the current framework because it allows for such events as the two recent police killings in Louisiana and Minnesota to transpire. — Sapientia

The Supreme Court can only proclaim the Constitutional minimum for when deadly force may be used by an officer ((1) defense of officer's life, and (2) keeping a person from escaping who may pose a threat to life of others)). A police department or state could place greater limits on the officers. Regardless, if the cops in Lousiana or Minnesota are not convicted, it won't be because of some limitation on charging the officers set by the Supreme Court. It will be because a jury decides there's insufficient facts to convict.

I see. And so, if Senate Democrats refused to bring a President Trump nominee up for consideration for four years or so, you'd be fine with that? After all, there are no Constitutionally-mandated constraints on when the Senate must hold confirmation hearings and take a vote on the nominee. — Arkady

You really don't stay on point very well. You said that the Senate violated procedure in its failure to vote on the Obama nominee and therefore put the party over the nation. I pointed out that there was no violation of procedure because there wasn't.

Now you're asking whether I'd be unhappy if the shoe were on the other foot. Sure, I'd want a Republican nominee to be voted on, and I'd want him or her to be approved. I wouldn't argue, though, that there was a violation of procedure in the Senate's failure to vote. If I did argue that, I guess I'd just be wrong and terribly inconsistent, but I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

But thanks for the tacit agreement that Republicans' actions fails to live up to their stated ideals. — Arkady

I think that is what every Republican says, thus the significant anti-establishment sentiment among Republicans.

Secondly, what does it say about the country when the majority party simply disregards procedure in order to stonewall a President from making the judicial appointments which it is within his power to make? — Arkady

What procedural rule was violated? My copy of the Constitution doesn't set out a timeline for when the Senate is required to evaluate Justice nominees.

Republicans aren't in favor of actually shrinking or weakening the government: they're for doing away with programs and regulations which they don't like (e.g. labor standards and environmental regulations) and building up those which they do (e.g. our already-bloated military). — Arkady

You sound like a Tea Partier, arguing for re-establishing the Republican ideology as it was intended.

This would seem to fall pretty squarely within the purview of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause, which is indeed a matter for SCOTUS. — Arkady

It would if there were actually a law that permitted the discriminatory murder of black suspects and the Court needed to strike it down. As it is, we're all in agreement as to the law. Some might debate the facts as to what is going on, but everyone is in agreement: racial discrimination is wrong.

Yes, because Senate Republicans have refused to even vote on an Obama nominee, once again (and I repeat) putting party before country. — Arkady

How would the country benefit by voting on a bad nominee?

How depressing. Why isn't this a bigger issue for Americans? Have they been placated? Turned docile and submissive? Or did it never enter their consciousness to begin with? — Sapientia

Once upon a time, so the story goes, we were ruled by a tyrannical leader, who cared little for the rights of the people and who governed with an iron hand. Through the force of violent rebellion, we broke free from our shackles, but remained forever skeptical of our leaders. Through careful thought, we devised a system that checked the power of anyone who was granted power so that never again would we be subjugated. These rules, among other things, divided the power of our legislature into two houses, provided an executive the full power to veto, and a court to review everything to be sure it complied with our lofty principles.

It is ironic that you describe this system as one that leads to submissiveness, because it does the opposite: it weakens the government and leaves the power to the people. It is for that reason that Republicans decry an increasingly central and controlling federal government.

This system is not at all depressing. It leads to great stability and certainty. It has provided the world with its greatest economy and a protector of all that is just and right in the world.

In any case, the courts remaining conservative can't be a good thing for a nation that's already so backwards. Guns, religious prejudice, death penalty, cops killing blacks left, right and centre without punishment. — Sapientia

The Court's ruling on guns is based upon the 2nd Amendment. That is but one of the checks on the federal government designed to weaken the power of the federal government (for what it's worth). The US is extremely religiously permissive. You guys still have a national religion don't you? Racial discrimination by police officers has nothing to do with the Supreme Court. It's illegal to kill the innocent already and the courts haven't said it's ok, so I'm not sure how that concern fits into this discussion.

I can say that the US has at least figured out how to spell center.

but to actually support Trump should leave you feeling dirty. — Sapientia

The American system is a rigid two party system, and with the internal Senate rules requiring a 60% supermajority to bring anything to a vote, it will be impossible for anything much to pass. Add into the mix that the House will be Republican and the Senate likely Democrat, nothing will ever pass. That means that whether it's Trump or Clinton, it will be 4 years of gridlock, which is the way the system was set up. It intentionally protects the status quo, especially in times of great disagreement.

The big issue is who will be placed on the Supreme Court. The judiciary, an entire branch of government, hangs in the balance, with the current split being a 4-4 conservative/liberal. So, for that reason, I'll vote for Trump so that the courts will remain conservative. The appointments made by the next President could affect the country for decades.

The question was why people vote for Trump. You think those reasons are stupid, but that doesn't address the question. You're not saying that's not why they vote for Trump.

By analogy: People pray to God so that the sick will be healed. You think that's stupid. Nevertheless, that's why people pray.

I concede Trump's buffoonery to a large extent, but I must choose between two evils, and I've picked my poison.

Wow. Beautiful. Considering it on a logical level, though, I feel like You are reducing G-d to morality rather than vice-versa. In other words, from what You said, it should follow that G-d is merely an easier name for whatever You call the system of morality the governs Your life. Thus, G-d's reaction becomes irrelevant; we are just computers and the program we follow is G-d or morality or whatever You want to call it. An interesting idea. — David

I think I'm making God and good synonymous as opposed to reducing one or the other. It's consistent with my very expansive reading of the commandment against idolatry, which I take as a prohibition against objectifying him in any way. That would include considering him a thing of any sort. But I suppose that's an aside. Yes, God is goodness, and the goodness exists, but I think it's meaningless to ask where goodness physically exists, and I disagree that goodness waited around for some guy to be smart enough to create it.

am I doing this forum right? — David

You are, but as a practical matter, do whatever you want. That's what I do.

On Your end, how can You know that worshipping (as You understand it) G-d is actually causing G-d to feel worshipped? What I mean to say is that the G-d You happen to pray to is one whom You could never know how to pray to? Doesn't that make prayer feel useless? — David

Your capitalization of "You" is odd by the way. I agree, worship makes no sense. I don't even fully understand it under a traditional religious view. It would seem that God needn't be asked, but that strikes me as another question.

I'm a Trump supporter, so let me tell you why I support him. Hillary's a liar. The left's general plan is to give stuff away. We have no consistent immigration enforcement, yet we have very clear laws setting out what our immigration policy is supposed to be. Wanting to remain a sovereign nation is not equivalent to being xenophobic. No one is as sensitive in their daily lives as the media demands everybody be. And the biggest reason of all: there are no other Republican choices. I was a Kasich supporter, but he's not around anymore.

You guys sitting around trying to figure out why anyone would support Trump is like me sitting around trying to figure out why anyone would support Sanders. It's obvious. You guys are just wrong about everything you believe in.

I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that God doesn't exist. — Bitter Crank

but...

All that is to the good. — Bitter Crank

What anchors the good to reality if not God? Is it just man's declaration of what is good? Or, is the good good regardless of what demented person might call it bad? Unless you're willing to admit that the good is just some manmade invention subject to redefinition at will (and rejecting the view that our understanding of the good evolves over time, getting ever closer to the truth with the passage of time), it strikes me that you are a theist. Your god is what is good, just, and pure, and that god is what the Christian and the pious atheist both worship, just calling themselves different names.

So, I've reluctantly come to the conclusion that God does exist.

My understanding of Jewish tradition (at least in one of its forms) is that the basis for obeying Jewish law is rooted in the value that you will obtain in this world. This is different from the Christian tradition that holds that you should do good in order to obtain eternal rewards. This is not to say that Jews don't believe in a world after this one, but the emphasis is exactly where you put it in your discussion above, which is doing things in a Jewish way for the benefit of this life.

Regarding whether God has tricked everyone and told them the opposite of what is true, I don't know what to make of that. If you don't have faith that God is honest, then I guess anything could follow as to what he meant when he said things. He'd be just like any other person you couldn't trust.

That they're attempting to diagnose the problem by surveying scientists seems to be evidence of the underlying problem. This is science after all, and it should be obvious to a scientist that its entirely irrelevant whether scientists believe there to be a crisis or not. If we define a scientific result as that which is reproducible, and we have evidence that it's statistically unlikely that most published findings are reproducible, then, as a matter of fact, journal articles are not to be considered a trusted source of scientific information. Whether scientists wish to gather together and declare the current state a crisis isn't a scientific event; it's a political one.

The solution is to qualify all scientific research for what it is. If it's preliminary and based only upon what one lab has determined, then it should be noted. If it has been reproduced, then our confidence level in those results can be increased. The political question then becomes what everyone wishes to do with the preliminary results, especially if there are no reproduced findings forthcoming. If we learn that talcum powder, for example, causes cancer based upon a single lab, do we shut down that entire industry or not?

Those rates are actually really reasonable. I mean they're not as good as Michael's $7 a night third world opium den, but for a west coast resort, pretty doable. Maybe I'll come out there and get the cucumber on my eyes treatment. I've always wanted that and oh yeah and a $7 third world opium den whore. That too.

Some more Street Photography (mostly around Chinatown, Bangkok). — Baden

So what you do is you ask someone what the capitol of Thailand is and when they tell you, you punch them in the crotch. An oldie but a goodie. Feel free to use it as your own.

If everyone could provide their mailing addresses, we could just photocopy and mail pictures to each other.

If I've been inconsistent year to year, I don't know. Point out my prior comment, and I'll respond. It is true that migrant workers do take some jobs the locals don't want (like.certain agricultural jobs), but no doubt others they do compete with the local market, especially overseas labor.

There is a worker class, middle class, upper class, etc. That's not a leftist notion. Anyone can categorize based upon income or job description regardless of political leaning. I don't think anti-Marxists argue there is no working class. The debate centers on the cause of the alleged struggle and it's solution.

Migrants haven't traditionally been more educated. Mexican migrants rarely have any meaningful formal education, for example.

It's likely immigrant labor and overseas labor is used as a scapegoat for other societal and individual failings, but certainly not all. The economic impact to a society is real when high numbers of jobs are performed by others.

My thesis is that the lack of consistent and meaningful immigration policy and the allowance of foreign nations with minimal labor regulation to perform domestic tasks has had a real negative impact on the working class. If we cure that failing will it be the panacea the working class needed? Of course not, but I'm a bit skeptical of any suggestion that immigration reform measures must be rooted in xenophobia or scapegoating at some basic level. You can't just open up all jobs to all comers and not expect a damaging effect on those who previously didn't have that level of competition for those jobs.

But that was my point. "Society as a whole" (as you use it) identifies a particular society, but not the society you're required to be in. Kim Kardashian lives in a different society from me and an Amish guy another. Which of these people lives in the "society as a whole" you've identified? You don't need to be a monk to avoid the impact of Kardashian's social values. You just don't need to live in her society. If your question is simply "what is the message of the vacuous social group in the US," it's obviously vacuousness.

I agree. We ought to allow that the lies be said and the truth be ferreted out naturally. Everyone believes they possess the truth anyway, so it's not clear who gets to sanctions the liars. We all have a point of view. We tend to be more forgiving of those who use a bit too much force when selling a point of view we agree with.

There's not a single monolithic society attempting to convey any particular message. What you glean as being sacred in whatever society is most pervasive in your life might be interesting from a self assessment prospective. If your society has vacuous and shallow goals, then instead of ridiculing it because you can't control it, leave it. That you can control.

I don't mean to pack your bags necessarily, but I do mean to not count yourself among those who live in ways you disagree with. I mean that you need not worship those things they find sacred and that you don't. Your society, defined by those you choose to identify with, doesn't need to be so vacuous.

If you come to the conclusion your life has no existential worth, then I don't see an ethical justification not to change.

And from what I've heard, there were those who suggested exiting would result in WWIII, arguing an exit was equivalent to a return to pre WWII nationalism. It'd be a neat trick if we could cancel any decision (democratic or otherwise) if we could just prove through some sort of post decision litigation that someone tainted the information pool. I think we've got to trust our decision makers to separate the wheat from the chaff on the front end else we'll never be able to make a final decision.

Anyway, if you reject the referendum and impose the EU on some people who are quite certain they can decide what's best for themselves without some philosopher king parenting them, I think you'll be in a far worse situation than in just exiting. Hell, just ask Her Majesty what's best and forgo all this new fangled people power stuff.

Looking at this from afar, I'd say that the leaders of the EU are to blame. For years the Brits complained about losing their autonomy and the EU leaders knew very well that there was a large and growing contingent that wanted to exit. They refused to accommodate the legitimate concerns of the Brits and left them with the stark choice to either accept the situation as it was or make the risky decision to leave and face economic difficulties. The EU just assumed the Brits wouldn't leave, so they offered them no accommodation. This was just poor politics and leadership on the part of the EU because I think all involved still believe that a union is economically preferable. That they couldn't work it out speaks to political failure and not that the idea that economic unity was not a good idea.

Fear of economic ruin will not keep a country in the EU and fear of foreign takeover will not force people out of the EU. There is plenty of middle ground, but the middle folks didn't win the day.

Hopefully this will be wake up call for the EU so that they'll realize that if other nations begin to complain, they'll make real efforts to accommodate them.

From a US perspective, the idea of a foreign nation being authorized to direct the US in how it is to conduct its affairs is entirely unacceptable. Taking pride in being right is nothing to apologize for. If we cared what Europe thought, we wouldn't have left.

No, I want the referendum results to be disregarded in favour of what's actually right. I just happen to believe that what's actually right is to stay. — Michael

This assumes that you value economic prosperity over adherence to democratic principles. I would consider the violation of democratic principles (as in ignoring a referendum) to be a more negative aspect of a society than a decision to do something that might negatively impact an economy.

Suppose I fully believe in dogs based entirely upon faith, wouldn't a be a realist?

You'd be an agnostic realist. — Michael

I think there are many theists who believe in god based upon faith alone and not upon empirical demonstration who would disagree with the agnostic designation you impose on them. I'd think that that someone who had an unwavering belief in god despite demonstrable evidence to the contrary (e.g. Job) would be someone considered hyper-theistic as opposed to agnostic in any regard.

The best I can decipher from your distinction is that there are those theists who doubt their views at some level because they hold faith as a lower form of proof than sensation, and sensation offers no proof for god's existence. So, they're sort of weak believers, but I don't think all (or even most) theists think their faith offers a weaker form of proof, really just the opposite. They would say such things as nothing is more certain than God's existence and it's irrelevant what empirical evidence you show them in an effort to prove the contrary.

One might believe in something despite recognising that this belief isn't (strongly) justified (or certain) – and those that say that their theism reduces to faith rather than reason or evidence would be prime examples of agnostic theists. — Michael

If one concedes that one's faith is of little justification value, then it seems like that person is of little faith and not a true believer. If I tell you that I believe in god, and I tell you the belief is entirely based upon my faith so I don't really fully believe it, then I'd say I'm half ass theist who sorta kinda believes in god.

Suppose I believe in dogs based upon empirical evidence, but I then tell you that I really don't fully trust my senses (as opposed to my faith, which I hold to be paramount), am I an agnostic realist? Suppose I fully believe in dogs based entirely upon faith, wouldn't a be a realist?

Instead of simply taking a photo and posting it on TPF, maybe you should have made some effort to free that caged child.

Is this good writing? — csalisbury

He's got us talking about it I guess.

Several countries in Europe forbid expressing certain views about Nazis -- like, they were nice people, really, and didn't kill all that many people. Total rubbish, of course, but I don't quite understand why people there put up with such a rule. — Bitter Crank

For all that might be said by Europe of the US backwardness, we are extremely progressive when it comes to free speech, largely because it's enshrined in our Constitution, which we hold to be sacred. We can openly lie about politicians with impunity and we can burn our own flags while chanting racist slogans.

Of course, one must understand the European Nazi rule within the historical context and appreciate why the line may be drawn there. That regime almost ripped the continent apart and sent Western civilization on a very different course. The US, though, which was just a ripped apart by slavery, does not see it that way. In explaining why it struck down the anti-cross burning law as unconstitutional, it said, "Let there be no mistake about our belief that burning a cross in someone's front yard is reprehensible. But St. Paul has sufficient means at its disposal to prevent such behavior without adding the First Amendment to the fire."

The First Amendment issue as it relates to hate crimes prohibits illegalizing the expression, but allows the prohibition of the conduct. Some examples (and you can Google the cites) from the Supreme Court: The Court ruled that laws prohibited flag burning were unconstitutional to the extent the law was prohibiting the expression of displeasure against the US. Obviously a state could prohibit burning things in public places as a matter of safety, but not flags specifically. The Court ruled that Minnesota could not prohibit the burning of crosses in people's yards specifically. People have the right to express their racism. Obviously the person could be charged with trespass and certain fire related crimes, but not a specific crime forbidding the racist expression. There was a crazy religious sect that would protest at the funeral of marines, somehow linking them to gay marriage (http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/thugs-try-to-stop-a-marines-funeral-then-bikers-show-up-watch/). The Supreme Court ruled they could do that.

The point being you have a God given right to hate, so it's hard to properly count hate "crimes" because they won't show up in an official count of "crimes" because the Court doesn't allow us to punish haters. Whether h8rs can be punished is another matter. I h8 h8rs.

I consider the US to be a UK spinoff. You're the Joey to our Friends.

Make of that what you will. — Michael

Yes, but Break Dancing 2 Electric Bugaloo was far superior to the original. Make of that what you will.

Ok, so I've read these two posts and the discussion is largely over the following terms (in the order these terms appear) (1) right vs. wrong, (2) subjective vs. objective, (3) aesthetic experiences vs. emotional experiences, and (4) good vs. bad.

Once we break down all these terms, it would seem the real question (if it's ever addressed during the definitional analysis) is "is beauty objective"? To say that it is not suggests I cannot create a coherent argument for why something is beautiful beyond simply saying that it appears that way to me. Yet we do in fact present arguments as to why something is or is not beautiful, as if we're trying to convince the other of our viewpoint. To say that beauty is objective is equally problematic as it suggests that the beauty would exist even if no one thought it beautiful. Such is the quandary I believe, as opposed to the definitional issues that were brought up.

It seems 2005 was a particularly bad year for Jews and hate crimes. It also looks like overall hate crimes were reduced from 2005 to 2014. I'd suspect there is an inconsistency with the definition and identification of a "hate crime" over the decade as well, making the comparison somewhat difficult.

The courts have weighed in on the hate crime issue over the years with regard to whether they violate free speech rights, so it might also be the case that such laws have been re-drafted more narrowly over the years to comply with the various court opinions.

It's obvious that our rise is due to the increase in quality that I bring to the table. I would only ask that others put forth the effort that I have.

I'd also point out that we all realize that the UK web is a rural backwater, but I do believe our success there might be an indication that we will eventually succeed in the meaningful US market. Like most, I consider the UK a beta version of the US.

Pretty much off topic, but if you ever quit drinking, you'll realize how boring bars are, how boring drunk people are, how much less it costs to eat a meal, how much earlier you wake up on the weekend, how much more energy you have, how much more you will exercise, how much more you can accomplish in a given week, and how you'll start having a different sort of group of friends. And I say this never having been a big drinker anyway.

Try it a month and see and report back to me.