The GOP has no one but themselves to blame for Trump. — Arkady

There's no more reason to look for blame for the existence of Trump than there is for looking for blame to explain the existence of Sanders or Clinton. I'd vote for Trump over any Democrat. In truth, I see the existence of Sanders as better evidence of the sorry state of affairs than the existence of Trump.

So what? Even if a second presidential term is coming to an end in 10 months, there is PLENTY OF TIME for a nomination, confirmations hearings, and a vote. — Bitter Crank

The argument submitted by the Republicans was that typically Presidents don't appoint Justices in the last year of their term. The Dems responded by saying that the Reagan precedent makes that argument inconsistent. My point is that there really isn't a Reagan precedent because Reagan had been making efforts to appoint a Justice well over a year prior to the end of his term.

Has a decision been reached on what we are to read? I hate when I read the wrong thing because I was only half way paying attention.

Over time, trillions of incorrect quantum binary decisions were made to co-create literally an "upside down" civilization — holofractal

I can't say I followed your post or all the transitions you made from one subject to the next, but I will say that if your position is that civilization is literally upside down, then we are all actually on our heads. I'd say that's literally nuts, as in there are all sorts of nuts on the floor needing sweeping.

If they obstruct, they'll get called on it, and with the Reagan precedent, there's nowhere to hide. — Baden

Reagan nominated Robert Bork in July 1987 and he was rejected by the Senate. He then nominated Douglas Ginsburg who withdrew for personal reasons. Then in November 1987, Kennedy was nominated. The presidential term ends in January.

So, the nomination process actually began for Reagan about a year and a half prior to the end of his term, where this process will begin 10 months prior to the end of the term.

I think the Republicans will try to block whoever is nominated in the hopes that a Republican president will be elected. The Reagan precedent will hold little weight. The country is far more divided now than before and obstruction from both parties is the norm. Also Obama is far less popular than Reagan was.

It's also not like we have to read the tea leaves: "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tonight issued this statement: 'The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.'”

In terms of party self destruction, did anyone notice that the mid-term elections resulted in historic Republican gains in the House, Senate, state legislatures, and state Governor offices? It took a GW to create an Obama and an Obama to create a Trump.

That's the question I asked. When it comes to maths, doesn't understanding consist in knowing how to manipulate the symbols, or at least knowing what to do with the input (e.g. plot a graph)? — Michael

If one performs mathematical processes without any understanding of the meaning of the symbols or of the reasons behind the processes, then that person would be like the English speaking person in Searle's Chinese Room. You've just restated the thought experiment using math as an example as opposed to the Chinese characters.

The question is whether such examples are akin to what we actually do when we speak and convey our thoughts to other people. I'd say it's pretty dissimilar, considering in the Chinese Room we have no idea what thought we're conveying, but when we say "I'm hungry" (for example) we do.

I don't really see how this is as much a twist on the Chinese Room thought experiment as it is a restatement of it.

I'm sort of wondering of what practical relevance is there in calling one's self a natalist or an anatalist using your definitions?

Let's say a 10 year old girl just loves her dolls and loves everything about little kids, believing that a world filled with kids would be the most wonderful place. Being 10, she obviously cannot engage in any activity that would result in having children, nor would she want to. She is in fact an anatalist using your strained definition. Of what value is it in designating her as such, and how does it help you to put yourself (as a celibate) and those who detest children in the same general class as her?

Then what's anatalism? Because I thought you were defining anatalism as a practical assent to anti-natalism. — Michael

Anatalism can either be the belief that you don't want to there to be kids or it can be the belief that you do want for their to be kids, depending upon whether you define "assent" to me that you agree with the idea that there shouldn't be kids or whether you simply engage in behavior that will lead to their not being kids. A person who hates kids, but who has kids might be an anatalist or might be a natalist, depending upon the definition you happen to be using. The hate kids (thus an anatalist) but had kids (thus a natalist).

It's sort of like I'm a dog, where dogs are defined as people.

They are, practically speaking, anatalist, since they repudiate natalism by their actions, which don't include, by definition, having children. Now, they may still theoretically assent to natalism, or they may not, but this is a different kind of assent. — Thorongil

Here's why your position is nonsense:

1. You wish to redefine "assent" to mean "acts in a way that requires a specific result." What this means that a person who very much wants to have children but can't due to physical or social limitations (the largest group of celibates by far) is an anatalist because he's acting like someone who doesn't want to have children. That would mean he's "assenting" to the anatalist position.

2. This causes a problem because the word "assent" also (and actually) means "expressing approval for." That would mean that the celibate who wants children would be "assenting" to the natalist position.

Obviously #1 and #2 are contradictory. The same person is both a natalist and anatalist. That contradiction can be explained away as being the result of equivocation with the term "assent." In #1 the term is used differently than in #2.

This doesn't solve our problem, though...

A person who engages in wild promiscuous sex can be an anatalist as long as that person uses birth control. That is, you can have all sorts of sex, but by engaging in safe sex, you won't have children. So, every person who uses birth control "assents" (per definition #1) to anatalism.

So, to boil all this down, what you're saying is:

If you don't do what is necessary to have children, then you are acting in a way that requires (i.e. "assents" per definition #1) that no children will be born. That does not mean, however, that you prefer that no children be born (i.e. "assent" per definition #2). All you mean to say is that if you don't have sex, you won't have kids, but you offer no hint about whether that person not having sex wants or doesn't want kids. This means that certain anatalists really want children.

So, we now have two definitions of anatalism:

A. Those who don't want for there to be children.
B. Those who want for there to be children.

As noted, we have two definition of the word "assent" :

1. Behavior that requires a certain result.
2. Belief or agreement.

Let us now break this down and offer the 4 logical definitions of anatalism and the behaviors associated with it:

1A -- Those who behave in a way that there will be no children and who don't want children.
1B -- Those who behave in way that there be no children but who do want children.
2A -- Those who express agreement for the position that there be no children and who don't want children.
2B -- Those who express agreement for the position that there be no children but who want children.

2B is a bit of a problem.

Of course, it seems logical (since we've defined terms every whichaway) that there be a natalist who does not want for there to be children. That would be the person who engages in unprotected sex but who claims to hate children. After all, plenty of folks get pregnant who don't want kids. We could go through all this same analysis using the term "natalism" and list out the logical possibilities.

And on and on and on.

The way to avoid all this mess is to define terms in a realistic and meaningful way, which you've not done. In fact, my thought is that your attempt to redefine the terms was an attempt to save your theory that somehow anatalism and celibacy were related.

2) Many Church Fathers and Christian theologians have not interpreted the command to "be fruitful and multiply" as relating to procreation. — Thorongil

This is an irrelevant aside. Surely you're not suggesting that there is not a single priest who is both celibate and who wants there to be more children in the world. That is all that is required. At any rate, my point was simply that there is nothing illogical about wanting there to be more children in the world and also wanting to be celibate.

This ad hominem is something I would expect a fraternity boy to utter, not someone on a philosophy forum. — Thorongil

And that too is an ad hom, but not terribly insulting, considering I was in fact in a fraternity (shocker I know). I'm not sure why that's a bad thing, unless, of course, you harbor some long term resentment from exclusion.

My point was simply (as I've noted) that your argument was illogical. There is no relationship to celibacy and natalism. You threw in a curious personal factoid about yourself in the OP, and now you complain when I commented on it and offered an alternate explanation for why you weren't having sex.

By analogy: If I told you that I don't bathe because I don't want animals to suffer, you might point out that the two are unrelated and that my lack of hygiene is probably because I'm a slob and not because I really care about the higher purpose of animal happiness. You then might tell me to go take a shower. Then someone else might tell you to stop offering advice because this is a philosophy forum. Then I might tell you to stop being mean because I have the right not to shower. And then we'd be where we are, but the point would remain: showering and animal suffering (just like celibacy and natalism) are not logically related, regardless of how cleverly we throw barbs at one another and regardless of how we sidetrack the issue.

I think the issue that Schopenhauer1 is bringing up is not necessarily that life is always a burden, but rather when analyzed from an objective third person perspective, it could easily be said that each and every one of us live our lives "chasing the cheese", so to speak. It is quite nihilistic and useless. When we take a look at what our lives are constituted by and see just how much time we spend pursuing empty pleasures and needs, it really does drive a nail through our appreciation of life. — darthbarracuda

You shift gears here. Your first sentence is an argument for not living life, arguing that all pursuits are useless, so you should just sit on the front porch swing waiting to die. The second sentence adds the word "empty," which qualifies pleasures and needs, suggesting perhaps that there are some needs/desires that are not empty. Perhaps discovering what is empty and what is not might be the way to go here. What do you think?

I do think it's generally accepted that some pursuits are worthwhile and others not, like spending time with those close to you, developing relationships, helping others, thinking about the meaning of life, and engaging in intellectual pursuits. These would be in contrast to "chasing cheese" for whatever that entails.

Even should you disagree that the pursuits I've itemized are meaningful, I don't see how you can assert that starving yourself, shivering naked in the cold, or denying yourself sex are somehow meaningful. It's not like starving isn't a pursuit in itself, so I'm not entirely clear why starving is a good pursuit but eating is a bad pursuit. The only truly critical difference it seems is that the former is masochistic and the latter not. You'd have to explain to me why a masochistic philosophy is better than one that allows for personal comfort.

If starvation will free me from the binds of needing to eat, perhaps demeaning me and throwing trash on me would free me from the binds of needing kindness. And, if starving yourself provides you meaning in your ass backwards world, maybe we should deny you starvation and force you to eat just to really fuck with you. We can't allow you to become addicted to self-depravation because that would interfere with your free will. Every now and then we need to compliment a masochist just to piss him off.

The Amish actually have a word for someone who seeks too much simplicity as being proudly humble and therefore in violation of the Amish rule against pride. I don't know what the word is. My Pennsylvania Dutch is rusty.

Regarding Dennett, I agree that Consciousness Explained is very bad in most of its positive explanatory aspirations. — Pierre-Normand

There seemed to be such hype surrounding Dennett when I read that book that I felt I must not understand it and that I was missing something. I felt vindicated when I later discovered that many felt it as unpersuasive as I did.

I did point out the logical problems with the association of celibacy and the anti-natalist position, indicating that there is simply no way to correlate the two. You can hate sex and want more children in the world, love sex and want no more children in the world, hate sex and hate children, and love sex and love children. We could even change the word "hate" to "be indifferent to" and "love" to "sort of like" and even create more logical possibilities. Every possible logical possibility can exist.

This being a philosophy forum, and my response being so obvious, I can only wonder (and admittedly out loud) why someone might try to draw a correlation when there isn't one. My thought was that the OP wasn't rational at all, but more of a rationalization; thus my response, which included a possible reason one might wish to rationalize.

I'd also point out that if a rule were passed requiring that I remain on topic, the world would have lost out on some of my most interesting insights.

I'd also add that if the celibacy is the result of social inability to find a partner or simple lack of interest in pursuing sexual relationships, then it has nothing at all to do with wanting or not wanting children. There are plenty of women who have chosen to become pregnant but have not wanted to be in a relationship and there are plenty of people who have wanted to have children but who couldn't find a partner.

I'd also point out that if your celibacy is the result of inability, then you may want to work on those issues as opposed to philosophizing them away and convincing yourself that you're advancing some higher objective. I have the sneaky suspicion that all this "I'm not interested in such matters" would get turned upside down if the right person came along. Own it and fix it.

Or perhaps it won't be so bad and they'll allow us to live out a seemingly normal life in the Matrix. — Sapientia

You might already be in the Matrix. As far as the guy in the Matrix knows, he wasn't in the Matrix until he was being told he was being removed from the Matrix.

As I recall, John Henry competed valiantly against the steam driven hammer only to die at the end. Such folklore began during the industrial revolution as people began to have the same fears we are now seeing reemerge as machines aren't just replacing our brawn, but now our brains. It's hard enough to compete against one another, much more so against machines designed to work harder and faster than us.

I don't know what ought to happen, but I do see what is happening. It's that fewer and fewer truly compete, with an educated elite ruling the world. The simple hard worker just has less and less to do. So, we raise taxes to give benefits to those who can't earn them and we redistribute the wealth and further polarize the have and have nots.

If we get to the point where the economy is largely automated, we have to start sorting out who gets the wealth produced, with me arguing it should go to the people who automated it, and you arguing a more equal distribution. With each election cycle we can see which way it'll go. One day we might get so polarized that there won't be any moderate candidates, like you might see if it's Sanders versus Trump.

Was Marx really of the position that we're all motivated out of a sense to promote the common good? Or was he rather of the position that we ought to be? The former seems naïve and mistaken. — Sapientia

If he only thought that people ought to be concerned about the public good, but recognized they wouldn't be, then that would suggest he fully intended communism to be totalitarian, else how else would the people do something they didn't want to do?

No, that's not quite right, since security is only part of the job. They're also to ensure that no one pays too little. They're to ensure that the correct amount of money is paid and secured, as well as providing satisfactory customer service. — Sapientia

Concerns about people paying too little and that the money is secured are generally security matters, namely that the money that belongs to the store is received and protected.

Let's aim a bit higher than satisfactory customer service. Let's go for exemplary or remarkable. Come on team, we can do better!

Alternatives to capitalism need not be in the form of the naïve, unrealistic ideal that you describe above. — Sapientia

I was attacking Marxism, which was what had been brought up. It seems that no matter how many times Marxist regimes fail, Marxists insist upon explaining how that failure was the result of poor adherence to true Marxist doctrine.

But to the question of whether there is something better than capitalism, I doubt it.

Truvada is an HIV nucleoside analog reverse transcriptase inhibitor and prevents HIV from reproducing within target cells. — Bitter Crank

Analog is so old school. Is this hipster medicine? When is the digitally remastered version coming out?

If Marx were correct and we all were motivated out of a sense to promote the common good, we wouldn't need check out operators. We could each just take what we needed from the shelves (no more and no less) and go home and feed our families. The check out operator is actually just a security officer, standing over the money and making sure no one takes too much. He's a creation of the capitalistic greed machine, where people are assumed to be selfish. I envision a time when such selfish motives will vanish from the human psyche and we'll all live together as one in a John Lennonesque orgasm (a Lennongasm if you will). All we need is for humans not to be humans, a realistic goal as any.

However, I disagree that screwing my best friend will necessarily change our relationship, anymore than taking her on a fantastic boat ride would - it depends on the expectations which each has. — Agustino

Uh, yeah. Sure. Just like going on a cool boat ride.

Dating without sex doesn't seem to make much sense. — Agustino

So it's not a date until you have sex? What was it before the moment of penetration? Just a friendly encounter?

A drug addict may happily go his way and ignore my advice, but that is not an argument against my advice being useful. — Agustino

My point is that there is enough variation in acceptable behavior that someone doesn't have to model themselves after you in order to be normal. I'd also say that your views seem to be based upon intellectual notions of virtue and righteousness as opposed to any real life analysis. We are talking about human behaviors and relationships which are inherently emotionally based, which means that any analysis that simply declares a behavior inappropriate based upon some logical reason will be incomplete (and really naïve sounding). We all understand that if logic controlled such matters, Romeo wouldn't have dated Juliette. Of course, they really never "dated" because they didn't have sex before they were married.

Well perhaps they should think about it themselves, and ponder it carefully, and see afterwards if in fact they do not come to this same conclusion. — Agustino

Sort of like telling me that I really didn't enjoy that glass of wine because I didn't comprehend the nuances of a glass of wine well drunk, despite my assurances that I did. We're now into refined fucking that only the sophisticated can truly appreciate I guess. Sounds complicated and somewhat tiring. Too each his own I guess.

Only when one has reached their potential for freedom and independence can they truly enjoy sex - not as slaves running after something without which they cannot live - but as dignified human beings, sharing their freedom with one another out of a free choice to do so. — Agustino

The gift of being able to channel other people's experiences and declaring them inadequate is quite a talent of yours. I can only imagine the surprise of those who thought they were truly enjoying sex, but are now learning they weren't.

Running to the closest woman because I cannot control my sexual impulse is shameful - a parade of my un-freedom, masking itself as a free decision, when it is no free decision, but a forced decision. — Agustino

It's not shameful as much as it might be embarrassing and futile. Although I am far from being one to offer advice on how to score with the ladies, sprinting up to them asking for sexual release might not be effective.

A relationship cannot be improved by not having sex. If the relationship isn't good, then it's not good, full stop. And it's not good because of character defects (in one or both partners), not because of the presence or lack of sex. — Agustino

You just sort of announce things, as if they're self-evident. Relationships rise and fall for all sorts of reasons: stresses, incompatibility, boredom, or whatever, none of which are character defects. It's not like every person of upstanding character is compatible with every other person of upstanding character.

Your other comment here is striking for how incorrect it is. Sex can dramatically change a relationship, either improving it by bringing the people closer together or by destroying a friendship. If you don't believe me, go screw your best friend and see if everything is the same the next morning. The point being that sex is an important component of a relationship, but obviously one of many.

Celibacy is developing the inner strength to: 1. refuse to take that which isn't worth your time (refuse to engage in sexual relationships with people who will hurt themselves and hurt you), and 2. learn to live alone (because sometimes in life you may actually have to), and 3. learn to be patient and wait so that you may catch gold. Simple. And it's not my philosophy, it's the philosophy that has existed for reasonable men and women since Aristotle. A diamond cannot be found without patience, perseverance, learning to say no, and temperance and prudence. All of the former are virtues.
So my point is aim to get married. Keep looking for virtuous people. Stay in their company, and ultimately marry one. But do not marry just because you need to have sex. Do not marry just because other people are. Do not marry the wrong person because you cannot find better. Be of good courage and persevere in your search. And this is all greatly facilitated by celibacy until then. — Agustino

It's really not important to me if you have sex or not, but at least make sense when you present your case. Your references to celibacy conjure thoughts of lifelong abstinence for spiritual reasons, but then you go on to say that really you're only advocating abstinence before marriage. And by "marriage," unless you're committed to the Christian concept of two souls melding as one, I assume you simply mean a truly committed relationship. If that is the case, then all you're telling me is that you don't want to have casual sex, but you want to be sure it's with someone you truly care about. What started out as advocating celibacy turns out really to be just a hyperbolic way of saying you object to promiscuity. I mean that's hardly a controversial position. Such a position avoids STDs, unwanted pregnancy, and a certain amount of guilt, regret, and heartbreak I suppose from time to time, so it's a fairly supportable position.

Where your argument makes no sense is in your correlation of celibacy (as you've defined it) with being alone. I'm not sure why celibates who are just waiting for marriage cannot have meaningful friendships or even romantic non-sexual relationships. Those who preach abstinence do not mean that you can't date anyone. They just don't want you to have sex until marriage.

The only ones who are willing to do anything to get laid are desperate people who cannot control or manage their own urges (a character defect by the way - a defect which will certainly not be solved by "getting laid"). — Agustino

I don't favor promiscuity, but your simple declaration that those who are out looking for meaningless sex are somehow flawed is nothing but a moral judgment by you as to what sex ought to represent to people. There are those who don't live by that standard and go happily on their way, which simply means that your advice may not be useful to a segment of the population.

My hypothesis is that a strong relationship, when both partners care deeply about each other, are loyal and faithful, are of similar intellectual capabilities, etc. is the best for one's health. — Agustino

Marriage leads to longer lives for men. http://healthresearchfunding.org/married-men-live-longer-single-men/

But, such a relationship is exceedingly rare. So the next best alternative would be celibacy. But naturally - it follows from all this that one should cultivate the ability to be celibate. — Agustino

This strikes me as utter nonsense, to suggest that because most marriages are imperfect, we should all live in chastity.

The truth is that all relationships (sexual or not) are imperfect. If I'm already not having sex with all my friends, what do I do to improve those relationships if the panacea is to stop having sex with them? I'm already taking a healthy dose of the don't-fuck-my-friends medicine, so why do I still have occasional tiffs with them?

I wonder as I read these posts if there is some rationalization going on here. Do you guys really think that celibacy is the cure to your various physical and emotional challenges or is that just a comforting thing to tell yourself because you aren't getting laid?

It could also be someone whose lifestyle negates the possibility of having children, such as celibacy, meaning that they practically assent to anti-natalism, if not theoretically. — Thorongil

Priests don't assent to anti-natalism, but very specifically believe in being fruitful and multiplying, so much so that they object to any form of sexual behavior that interferes with it leading to pregnancy. That is to say that there are celibates who are clearly not anti-natalists. I don't think there is a consistent correlation between celibacy and an objection to having children, as the typical celibate (I would assume) is not celibate simply as a way to practice effective birth control. There are far simpler ways to avoid pregnancy than life long abstinence.

Those who believe that there should be no more children on the planet can have as much sex as they please without being logically inconsistent as long as they practice safe sex.

Why you've chosen not to have sex is your business, but I don't see how it bears at all on the anti-natalist position.

Against techno-optimism — Bitter Crank

Who needs all these gadgets to entertain us anyway? When I was a kid, all we needed were a few jacks and a rubber ball. I'm going to go stand on my porch and yell at the whippersnappers to get out of my yard.

There needs to be a specific system for rating priority that removes the subjective judgment element so that it can be carried out the same by everyone. That is, who gets the drug shouldn't be determined by who happens to be presiding on the death court that morning.

As to the specific criteria, I'd think it'd be the same as who should get the next kidney, the next heart, or the next ear. Those sorts of decisions have to be made all the time. Since there is often really no perfect answer, the best we can do is be consistent and create a fair process.

It's a twist on the age old question of who to throw out of the sinking boat in order to save it from sinking and killing everyone: the priest, the rabbi, or the prostitute. I mean, you throw out the rabbi, what's a priest going to do with a prostitute (especially if she's a female)?

Yes, yes they will. Other than bellying up to an occasional smorgasbord, you likely retain little of your Scandinavian culture.

Reading these forums (this one, the old PF and others), I've come to the conclusion that Americans actually don't think much of their state, they somehow don't believe it is a melting pot anymore. — ssu

The concern is that many of the newer immigrants don't wish to assimilate like the old ones. That's really less a matter of opinion than an empirical question.

A reason to believe the concern is real is because the Mexican immigrants (as opposed to earlier rounds of immigrants) are more likely to retain their culture due to their proximity to their homeland and their ability to move back and forth without having to fully commit to immigration. There has also seemingly been a shift in ideology, where it was once accepted that one should assimilate to it now being advocated that there be an acceptance of other cultural norms. I'm not condemning that ideology, but whether there has been such a shift is again an empirical question, and not simply one of opinion.

The question is whether the US is a melting pot or whether it is becoming a mosaic of all sorts of cultures living side by side without "melting" together as one. Typically assimilation takes a number of generations, so it is too early to tell. My expectation is that the concerns among English speaking Americans today will be replaced with the concerns of Hispanic Americans tomorrow, when they note that with each generation, fewer will speak Spanish or retain that culture. The monster that will eat them up is the American economy, which will demand they speak and act a particular way in order to find financial success. There is no question that the typical American will benefit from learning Spanish, but not nearly as much as one will benefit from learning English.

The point being that I do think there are legitimate concerns about what it means for a person to be an American, but I don't think those concerns will amount to much. The status quo isn't maintained by accident. There's a machine in place keeping it as is.

Infrastructure decay, just one kind of problem, are endemic from coast to coast. How do citizens get their representatives to pay attention before the bridge collapses, the gas storage blows up, the water poisons the whole town? — Bitter Crank

Or, better yet, how do the residents get the city to build higher levees before they predictably overflow and flood the entire city?

It's sort of like my roof. Every few years I hope to get a few more years out of it. It's just too expensive to replace when it seems to work just fine, and what fun is a new roof?

We can build new schools, add new lanes to a packed road, give our struggling firemen raises, or we can replace a pipe that the engineering schedule says should be replaced this year. It's easy to just push it off and wait for the moment when it's politically popular to replace the pipe, which should be right about the time it bursts and not a second sooner.

Having been the President (yes, President I said) of my HOA, I can tell you that when the savings account number rises, the neighborhood citizenry comes up with all sorts of creative expenditures (and this is in deep red country), none of which include saving it for the day when the tennis courts will predictably need to be resurfaced. Fortunately for them, they have a President who feels free to say no and then to offer them my job when they object. It's the same thing I think at all levels, but some politicians actually want to preserve their jobs and weren't elected simply because someone said "Hey, you're a lawyer, you should do it."

Your laments are the focus of the right, who point to the inherent inefficiencies and incompetence of government. Government workers don't get fired because there is poor oversight, no immediate financial incentive to fire them, political reasons to protect the people, the departments they work for, and those who run the departments, and employment protections not provided in the private sector. Add to that many public jobs don't pay that well and aren't exactly intellectually stimulating, and you just end up firing one low level employee and finding a carbon copy to replace him with.

If McDonalds serves bad hamburgers, then everyone goes to Burger King. If the line at the DMV is long, it's not like I can take my business elsewhere.

And no, this isn't an anti-government rant. It's just pointing out the inherent problems with a system that doesn't have immediate rewards and consequences.

Mental operations are so inextricable tied into emotion that it seems unlikely that atheists and theists would not be motivated in their movements towards and away from. At least, that is the way I see minds at work. — Bitter Crank

The word emotion itself is derived from the same root as "motion." We are "moved" by passion. Without emotion, we'd have no motivation to do anything, mental or physical. I therefore have no problem accepting the illogic of emotion if it serves to motivate to a higher good.

I have a close friend who is devoutly Mormon, who actually claims to believe the ancient Israelites found their way to the Americas and are ancestors of the current day Native Americans. That belief is tame when compared to many of his other beliefs (like of an actual corporeal God who lives on an actual planet, pre-life, post-life, the permanent binding of families for all of eternity, etc.). Utter bat shit crazy by all objective standards, but I must admit, what a neighbor he would make. He and his 5 kids would cut your lawn, repair your fence, bring you food if sick, have a group of missionaries out at your house at the crack of dawn to help you move, and they'd never drink, smoke, or tell you to fuck off.

As I get older (not more mature, just more resigned), I tend to shrug off the objections I once had regarding the preposterousness of religion. It used to really bother me how people could shut off their minds to absurdity and actually follow these religions like sheep. Pragmatism seems to be an overriding concern of mine, and if believing in nonsense makes you a better person than you would otherwise be, then I'll help you down a big tall glass of nonsense.

The challenge then is for those of us who do not believe and are of little faith. Do we actually have the motivation of our religious brethren to do the good acts they do? I certainly try, but I can't say that I have their sense of urgency and absolute commitment.

Punishment in general has weak deterrence value. — Bitter Crank

I generally agree, and I think this whole deterrence argument is a red herring. It's simply not the real basis provided by conservatives for the death penalty. The suggestion is that the right refuses to consider the overwhelming evidence showing that the death penalty is not associated with fewer murders and they just keep insisting over and over that it works. The truth, which is plain to see, is that the right doesn't care whether the death penalty reduces the murder rate. The reason is related to just deserts, plain and simple.

The right does not associate itself with consequentialist ethics, but generally adopts deontological and Biblically based theories. This weighing of happiness or whatnot is not a conservative doctrine, so I don't think the arguments in this thread suggesting otherwise hold much water.

And despite the myriad of ways that society has demolished creative philosophical thought, the author of that article has been able to transcend it all and still create insightful philosophical musings about the failed philosophical state of the world. It is refreshing to see that the inherently philosophical mind of man perseveres even in the most trying times.

don't doubt that the right's beliefs stand on "principles," only that many of said principles are ill-founded, and not as unified as you seem to think. — Arkady

No doubt that pragmatics play a role in every political ideology and there are few true ideologues anywhere, but to the general proposition that the right is less principled than the left, I don't think it holds. The general thought by the left of those on the right is that they are either (1) wealthy and greedy and only trying to create policies that protect their advantaged state, or (2) poor and stupid and have been duped by the #1s into supporting policies that are against their interests.

It's no more logical to criticize a poor conservative for voting against his interests than it is to criticize a rich liberal for voting against his interests. In either case, the vote is being cast because the person thinks it's the right thing to do, not because it may or may not put more money in his pocketbook (assuming he's a guy with a pocketbook).

I understand that there is skepticism in some quarters about climatologists' ability to predict climate or to reconstruct past climates, — Arkady

That is the general criticism of the right, along with the view that the current measurements encompass a fairly small window of time. Anyway, I'm not getting dragged into an anti-global warming debate here (as I'm far more equivocal than many of my right sided brothers), but I do think there is a real argument that must be made regarding the impact of global warming regulations in terms of how effective they'll be and how much economic damage they may cause. There must be some balancing test there, and there is a considerable ideological divide in the left's general view that the earth and its many creatures have inherent value that approaches the value of the average human being. The right would disagree and would happily see the death of all sorts of creatures and the destruction of all sorts of environments if it meant people could live better lives.

So, for instance, the Clean Air Act and regulations governing mercury levels in drinking water are not meant to protect humans? Who or what are they meant to protect? — Arkady

Or course I don't want poison in my water. The slippery slope works both ways: Should we deregulate to the point of immediate death or should we regulate to the point of putting everything under shrink wrap to the point of immediate death. The truth is the that the right and the left are on a sliding scale, with the right wanting less regulation and the left wanting more. The terms "right" and "left" describe the relative positions of location on a spectrum after all.

And even if the death penalty is desirable in principle, in practice it is riven by so many problems, both institutional, legal, and epistemological, that I don't believe that any reasonable person can defend its use. — Arkady

We all agree that the death penalty should be applied to the guilty. If we limit it to cases where there is positive DNA support, and admission of guilt, and videotaped evidence, would you support it? I think not. That is to say, your objection isn't fear you've got the wrong person, your objection is that it simply is counter to your sensibilities. In fact, if I removed your every objection (racial, economic, etc), I still think you'd object. You're standing behind rationalizations and pretense, and that is the objection of the right to your objections.

Deterrence has been cited many times as one reason for having a death penalty. And appealing to the consequences of the death penalty (i.e. deterrence, in this case) is definitely a consequentialist argument. — Arkady

Sure, if the typical person advocated the death penalty because he thought that someone else would not kill for fear of being killed, then he'd be a consequentialist. I really don't think that's why folks want the death penalty. I think they'd tell you that they don't care what happens as a consequence of the guy's death; they just think he deserves it. I will agree, though, that the typical person (right or left) hasn't sorted out the distinctions between consequentialism and deontology, but religious positions tend heavily toward deontology as a whole.

The God that believers claim to know is unknowable. I say, believe, then shut up about the object of belief. There is nothing to say. — Bitter Crank

This summarizes my belief really in a nutshell. In fact, it's my belief that any attempt to attribute substance to God in terms of what he is, how he looks, what he does, etc. is idolatry in the broadest sense of the definition. Just like we are prohibited from chiseling our gods from rocks and sticks, we are prohibited from attributing anything to God that specifies what he is and makes him subject to worship.

I'd argue that the first commandment tells us that there is but one God, the second that we shall not make a graven image of him (which I take most broadly as noted above), and the third that you shall not take his name in vain, which Orthodox Jews actually take to mean you shall not speak his never ever. For that reason, the actual name of God as written in the Torah is considered unpronounceable since no one has dared said his name since folks last spoke to him.

Leaving aside all the horseshit interpretation surrounding such biblical passages over the millennia, I take all this to mean just what you said: God is too great to even consider, so stop considering him and just sort of accept him in all his esteemed nebulosity.

So do come join me this Tuesday (that's my holy day) at the Hanover Church of Nebulosia. We speak not of that which cannot comprehend, but we have spaghetti dinners every Tuesday. Wednesday is Ostracism Day where we cast out certain members for violating our rules. We are a religion after all.

Ulcerative Colitis diagnosed at age 13. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

We are living parallel lives I tell you. My diagnosis was in my 30s, though. It's fully controlled for me, but I do enjoy the more frequent colonoscopies I get to have.

If humility were an illness, I'd be dead and gone, leaving the world an empty, useless place.

And, for the record, it was extremely difficult for me not to reclaim some malady related to over-developed genitalia or legendary sexual prowess, but because I liked the humility line so much, I went with that.

I don't think that those conservative precepts hang together without at least some tension. For instance, it is hard to maintain that one adheres to the "sanctity of human life" while also disregarding environmental regulations which, in part, are meant to protect human well-being, and while supporting an utterly dysfunctional justice system's ability to separate the sheep from the goats and execute only for-realz murderers, and not just poor blokes who have been railroaded by the system. — Arkady

My objective here isn't to argue that the right's position is accurate, only that it is much more principled than the left wants to recognize.

The right's skepticism of environmental regulations is based upon the proposition that our planet is neither fragile nor realistically knowable on a macro level. They do not believe that humans are destroying the planet by simply living on what God gave them to live on. They also believe it is hubris to suggest that we really know what is causing our weather patterns. Your comment that environmental regulations were created to protect humans is simply not what the right believes to be the case. If they did believe that, then only then would their position be inconsistent, but they don't.

No one wants to put the wrong guy to death. That is not in dispute. The general view of the right is that the guilty should be punished because they are responsible for what they've done. The resistance to criminal justice reform isn't rooted in a desire to continue to punish the wrong people, but it's a distrustful reaction to the left's efforts. What the right really thinks the left is trying to do is to make it impossible to convict the guilty by affording unreasonable restrictions to prosecution (and the death penalty in particular) under the guise of fairness. The left is seen as trying to find excuses for improper conduct (like poverty, upbringing, psychological issues), where the right sees the issue as very black and white. You have free will and, regardless of what your past was, and you therefore have the ability to avoid improper conduct.

Conservatives also cling to the quaint notion that the death penalty is a "deterrence," seemingly oblivious to the fact that the evidence for this notion is murky at best, and steps into a hornet's nest of consequentialist-oriented ethical conundrums. — Arkady

I don't think the right really cares if the death penalty deters future crime, nor do I think religious based morality is at all consequentialist. You mischaracterize the right here as a bunch of Utilitarians. They are far more Kantian in the outlook.

So, government can't be trusted to hand out food stamps, but it can manage trillion-dollar foreign adventures? Just a bit of tension in those beliefs, — Arkady

As I noted, the government's role is in protecting inalienable rights, not in granting rights. For that reason, the protection of the public from harm is the highest responsibility of government. It is doing what the right believes it must.

Food stamps are well beyond what the government ought to be doing, according to the right, and it violates principles related to self-autonomy and hard work.

You seem to want to point out how stupid the right's position is, which isn't really part of this discussion. The question is whether there is a way to extrapolate what the right's position would be in a novel situation. If there is, then there must be an underlying principle at play. If not, it's just a bunch of ad hoc positions cobbled together. My belief is that it is the former, even if you think the conclusions they reach are stupid.