Some sides are right and some are wrong. — RogueAI

In retrospect from a given angle. Never beforehand from inside either faction's ideology.

How we now evaluate past conflicts between people with whom we were not personally acquainted is irrelevant to the moral issue presented here. If the identity of Group A and B had been given in the OP, we might be able to apply historical perspective to their actions. But I suspect clean, correct Group B might not, in that light, so evidently have moral superiority. If their nationalities were avoided, so should the Germans, Japanese, Incas and Boers be avoided.

If it is my kid's fate to die in combat, I would prefer he die fighting for a good cause. — RogueAI

Every side believes its cause to be a good one.

When a group of people wants something badly enough to kill and die for, that is what they do. The methods employed depend on their relative position. Only the faction with the superior strength has the luxury of discrimination, of options in when, where and how to strike, of claiming to 'minimize collateral damage', of moral justification. The insurgents, rebels, resistance or whatever the weaker side is called, being consistently outnumbered and outgunned, resorts to guerilla tactics, which can't be as tidy as a nocturnal air-raid. But then the well-planned military operations of the superior power are rarely as surgically efficient as their press-releases make out.

Are there any opinions about the psychological factor in music, song, dance, sports, and possibly art? All this would be part of a liberal education. — Athena

All this was part of my 1957-1965 routine public school education in Toronto. Plus domestic skills, health and hygiene, math, grammar, literature, history, geography and science, access to the library and extracurricular activities. A lot of the arts and after-school programs were cut dues to financial constraints. A friend who came from the US and later went back told me that her daughter who wanted to study geography at post-secondary level could not find a school in Chicago that offered it.

On an individual level I think higher of a theoretical "humane" Nazi bomber who strives to play by the rules than the murderous Jew. — BitconnectCarlos

So... not a fan of the Irgun?

I'd like to see the schematics.

My other Idea, again a good one, is to take the best parking spots at the most crowded stores and to offer to leave for a price. — Hanover

How long would you have to run this scam to recoup the cost of all those cars?

Where does that put the British and American strategists who started the whole mess?

I wouldn't bring the ego into it, either. I think it's more a question of information, memory and imagination.

If you are aware of all that can go wrong, all that can happen to yourself or some enterprise about which you care, or have had or witnessed negative experiences associated with the action required, you can imagine every sort of bad outcome. Many fears are quite rational and realistic, and it takes resolve to subdue those fears for the sake of a desired good outcome. Some fears are unfounded, irrational: phobic. They are far harder to control; one must be quite brave to attempt those actions.
If you don't know what bad things might happen, or believe yourself in mastery of the situation, or don't care how it turns out, or have faith in supernatural intervention on your behalf, you might not experience fear at all. It takes no particular resolve or courage to do what you know you can do successfully.

Is the pilot and the group of armed men morally equivalent? — BitconnectCarlos

That depends on their motivation and circumstances. Both actions result in indiscriminate deaths, but there are significant differences in the scenario as given.
The first action generates a great deal of terror, both to the victims before they are reached and to the neighbourhood at large, in addition to the pain and death. The second attack is unexpected and sudden. Group A chose its intended victims and systematically carried out the slaughter, while Group B behaved according to the protocols of [presumably] declared international hostilities and killed civilians by happenstance. The motivation of Group A is not specified; it may have been retaliation for a similar attack on their own homes, or a mob worked up to frenzy by an agitator: we don't know. Group B is carrying out their duty as they see it, for a purpose they are convinced is right.

War is insane, and sometimes, so is murder. People in mobs and gangs are prone to contagious violent outbreaks. In very large numbers such as nations, the madness presents every appearance of method and reason - within its own internal rules and logic.

If we all raided Trump tower as Trump, they would have to let us into the penthouse. — Nils Loc

Getting the mannerisms down pat shouldn't be a problem. I imagine we're all doing it now, since Microsoft keeps throwing that stupid screen overlay in front of our faces. In the last three months, there has one day - one! - when it didn't have any pictures of that face.

That's the theory, anyway. — Wayfarer

Who cares? Beer is good!

Not according to scientists. "Ethnographic comparisons with contemporary groups of Hunter Gatherers broadly imply a high reliance on animal protein supplemented with a wide range of available plant foods." -- here. — frank

It's wiki, and speculative.

V Larger brain sizes required a greater caloric intake.[better source needed] In colder climates meat might be necessary due to the decreased availability of plant based foods, and in hotter tropical climates a wider range of plants would be available.[3]

No quantity or proportion specified.

The fact that whole species of megafauna disappeared when humans showed up in North America and Australia suggests that humans were apex predators. — frank

That was not in question. The "huge quantities" - as compared to modern westerners - are.

Our bodies break fats down into a simple carbohydrate: glucose. — frank

Not exactly. It's broken down into glycerol and fatty acids. It's a multi-stage process necessary for storage, since the molecules are too big to be absorbed. Glucose come from sugars and starches, which are faster and easier to break down, but they're usually not stored as long as fat; they're used for immediate energy. When components are required for cell construction, glucose and triglycerides are combined with amino acids from proteins - all kinds, not just animal. Why would an organism depend preferentially on the most expensive source of nutrition, when all three are needed?
Anyway, this leaning on distant ancestors is a futile exercise, since our modern diet bears very little resemblance to theirs.

I'd guess that greater accessibility to meat would help reduce the obesity epidemic, no? — Judaka

Especially cultured meat, since its fat content can be readily regulated. It also eliminates the risk of parasites (prevalent in game), chemical contamination (such as antibiotics and pesticides in farmed meat) and contagious disease.

It's interesting that you try to separate the two. Do you think the ending of slavery was primarily driven by moral considerations or aesthetic sensibilities? If we're comparing just these two factors. — Judaka

In that case, aesthetics don't figure, any more than they would in cannibalism. The objection is moral - particularly religious moral, as with the Quakers. But secular common decency comes into it as well, once people acknowledge that people of a different colour are just like themselves. There was, too, a philosophical and political enlightenment in Europe, which is why post-revolutionary France abolished slavery. Equality, fraternity and all that. In England, it was popular pressure, dues to the French example.
Slavery lasted longer in the US for economic reasons. The framers of the constitution were perfectly well aware of the problem, but felt they had to give in to the slave-owning faction in order to have a defensible union at all. That was a mistake for which Americans have paid dearly and are still paying.

Similarly, the habit of predation is costing this omnivorous species dearly in terms of health, environment and future.

If Trump had body doubles, they would be standing in three or four different docks in three or four different courts at the same time. But maybe he's too vain or not rich enough.

I’ve always struggled to understand the appeal for mind altering substances. — Skalidris

Reality is not always pleasant. Sometimes it's so unpleasant that people are desperate to escape it, even for a short time. (If it gets any worse, they'll find a way to escape it permanently.)
But alcohol is not primarily about escape or alteration of mind. In moderation it's a lubricant to conviviality; a way to feel lighter, warmer, more open-minded and accepting than when our minds are cluttered with practical problems and frustrations. In more difficult situations, it's an analgesic of sorts: a means of numbing psychic pain.
If you never have such feelings, count yourself lucky. If you never have such cravings, count yourself exceptional. But never, never count yourself superior.

And above all, why would you need reindeer for everyone??? — ssu

Because everyone needs nourishment. Reindeer probably would do quite poorly in Africa. Those people will have to make do with wildebeest and zebras. I already mentioned native North American wildlife that could substitute. Don't know what the Asians and South Americans will eat. Australia's all right for kangaroos. That's if all those populations follow your advice.

Urbanized people simply don't have the way to live off the land. — ssu

This is true. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/urban-vs-rural-majority
Therefore, half the world has to eat what it can buy while the other half has access to animals they can kill. While such animals exist.

Bread allowed us to get away from meat, yes. Archeological finds tell us that pre-agriculture hominins were heavily dependent on meat. — frank

Food items are dif­ferentially preserved at archaeolo­gical sites: archaeologists were once misled into believing that early humans relied heavily on meat foods, because bones, the remains of edible animals, survive far better than the remains of plant foods.

On meat, fish, nuts, berries, tubers, fungi and leaves. Whatever they could get. That's never been a huge amount for the majority of people; nor is it now.

Meat doesn't have any carbohydrates. — Vera Mont
Of course it does. It's in the fat. — frank

That's easily checked https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/172345/nutrients

Our ancestors ate huge amounts of meat. — frank

That's more true of the present generations.

Overall meat consumption has continued to rise in the U.S., European Union, and developed world.

Before the last century, few people anywhere in the world were rich enough to have meat every day and in primitive times, they had to catch it first - when they failed, they had to go without; when they succeeded, they had to preserve some for leaner seasons.

It's speculated that the human brain, which is a large obligate glucose consumer, drove the human appetite. — frank

For fruits and roots; in modern times, for processed foods containing lots of sugar. Meat doesn't have any carbohydrates.

I'm not seeing any reason why reindeer herding would stop for some reason. Human species is an omnivore and not a vegan. And just like reindeer herding, animal husbandry something that we can do quite ecologically (as 1000 years of reindeer herding shows). — ssu

As there are not enough reindeer for everyone, I suppose all the native wild herbivores of every continent will have to be domesticated, herded and eaten. That won't make any difference, as they are already going extinct in the wild. Canadians are already eating ranched bison and caribou. It's doable, but the ecological and climate impact will not be any less than that of beef cattle. And, on the required scale of production, the slaughterhouses won't be any nicer. Some people might still find the process distasteful. As for whether the plant-based substitutes, cultured meat, farmed or herded meat is healthy for the consumer, that depends on the methods employed in their production and distribution, over which the consumer has no control; he must rely on regulating and inspection agencies . https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666765722001508

My favorite is probably the Honderich-edited Oxford Companion. — Terrapin Station

I concur. of all the books that have passed through my hands in the last 20 years, it's the only one I've kept. Paid $2 for it at a library sale. For some people, its age may be a drawback: I have the 1995 edition.

Health and happiness are impossible without wealth and power. — baker

That opinion appears to me not based in documented fact. That is the subject matter of the book I cited. There is a short video on the same theme.

That's a false dichotomy, focusing only on the extremes. — baker

You have not offered a third way.

Don't forget that the Nazis started off their murdering spree by killing their own people whom they deemed "unworthy of life" -- and it was all fully legal. — baker

And you speak of false dichotomies?

Do you agree with my prediction? If you do, to what extent can previous moral developments be attributed to economic and technological changes? — Judaka

100%. Assuming, of course, that the future is a straight line in what we used to call enlightened social values. (That's not a given: we may be headed for a new dark age, or total collapse, or one followed by the other. )
Circuses with animal acts and zoos are already in disrepute; blood sports involving animals have been largely outlawed, except for hunting, and that doesn't have universal approval. The wearing of fur is widely frowned-upon; laboratory testing on animals is much disputed. The methods of industrial meat farming and processing are hotly debated, kept secret, denied and protested.
More people are becoming aware of the climate and ecological effects of large scale meat farming and the long term health effects meat consumption; vegetarian and vegan lifestyles are a growing trend in western countries, while other parts of the world have never had the luxury of consuming anywhere the near the quantities of flesh westerners do - and how much of it they waste. The one insurmountable objection to a vegetarian diet is becoming ever more surmountable by the advancements in cultivated meat.
The advocates of using animals as a necessity of human survival have run out of moral and health arguments; they fall back on personal preference, habit and "nature". The logic of their advocacy now resides entirely in economic considerations.
The change will be gradual, as it already is, with many kicking-and-screaming reactionaries. It won't be driven primarily by moral consideration, though that is an ever-present factor, but by aesthetic sensibility: killing is messy; preparing meat is icky.

To what extent have previous technological advancements changed people's attitude? On the economic side, quite a lot. But there were those who, with nothing to gain, fought against slavery, segregation, child labour, dog-fighting, bear-baiting - on principle. That is by no means an inconsequential factor in social evolution.

Of course it's cheating. So is going to a private clinic instead of the NHS. So is the use of a dog walker or nanny. Money makes life easier for people who have it.
But then, pretty girls get men to do things for them, celebrities always get a table no matter how crowded the restaurant, policemen get free doughnuts.

People use money and social assets to their own advantage. It's natural enough and generally accepted. It's not unethical unless it's done underhandedly, outside the rules of law and social mores.
The people in line behind a stand-in are not disadvantaged: their position is exactly the same as if the ticket-holder had been occupying that place.

it implies that a person can literally exchange money for free time which might not be possible for most socioeconomic classes — TiredThinker

Isn't that the definition of employment?
They presumably accept economic disparity and all the advantages money can buy. This is just one more service they themselves can't afford.

So, keep complaining about it and keep clarifying and correcting where you feel you need too. — universeness

As you wish.

By suggesting that most individual humans defer to their legal system you imply they do have an efficacy that is sufficient for most but perhaps not fit for purpose for all concerned. — universeness

I the remark was addressed solely to the ability of humans to control their natural impulses for the sake of social cohesion. What you infer is outside my purview.

If I need you to clarify a point then I will continue to ask you to. — universeness

I don't mind that. I do mind being misrepresented; I do mind having my statements interpreted as something quite different from what I actually said, whether it's done consistently, haphazardly or selectively.

In what way is this not a comment on: [how well the law performs against horror and terror] — universeness

In the way I indicated. It was about how we, humans in societies, have learned to suppress the impulse for personal revenge and defer to socially constituted legal mechanisms. I didn't evaluate the efficacy of those mechanisms. And there was a second sentence, which appears to have escaped your notice:
"In groups, we have much less self-control; in mobs, none at all"
If my answers cause so much confusion, perhaps I am unable to communicate clearly enough. Perhaps I should suppress the impulse to respond.

Which two? Gangsters like Hamas and an organised globally nefarious abominably rich elite or horror and terror. — universeness

Religious nationalists and greedy capitalists. How you characterize groups of people depends on which side you're on and what you believe the fight is about.

Apart from that, your agreement with Vera Mont, that human law has performed quite well in bringing peddlers or manipulators of horror and terror to justice, does not fully hold for me. — universeness

I really wish you would not misrepresent my remarks!

Individually, we have done surprisingly well at letting the law or God carry out our vengeance. In groups, we have much less self-control; in mobs, none at all. — Vera Mont

was in response to:

After my initial thoughts, it seemed so 'correct' to me that the 'kill, kill kill the bastards, and 'I must take total revenge on all they care about!' was what we must learn not to do, if we want to survive as a species. — universeness

I said nothing at all about how well the law performs against horror and terror, nothing about peddlers or manipulators or justice.

Making people healthier and happier and safe can be done in a bubble for certain elite while the rest of the world suffers. — Raul

That is what economic disparity does, yes. The point of ending economic disparity is to make it so for all the people. If that is not sufficient for you, fine, but I don't think you have the authority to proclaim that it cannot be sufficient for anyone else.

I asked you what the purpose of health and happiness was, since you advocate for health and happiness — baker

I didn't advocate for health and happiness - of course I would, if it were a question of advocacy. But I do think they're more worthwhile goals than wealth and power, if those are the available options.
As previously noted, this is an opinion. If you believe that being ill, anxious and miserable are preferable, that's also an opinion. The difference is, I won't tell you that it's an impossible or unacceptable one.

So what do people in those "more equal" societies do with all that social trust, health, wellbeing, etc.? What do they use them for? There has to be some purpose to them. — baker

Since I don't believe life has a purpose beyond itself, or that quality of life needs justification, that question simply has no meaning for me, no matter how many times it's repeated.

Do you not think that just as it's true of local political gangsters like Hamas, it's also true of the economic terrorism and the economic horror employed by an organised globally nefarious, abominably rich elite? — universeness

I don't see how the two are associated, even in the dictionary.

I'm challenging the widely held conviction that health and happiness are somehow worthy goals in and of themselves. — baker

This is supposed to a philosophy forum. Present your finely-reasoned argument.

And when Pope Francis preached for good stewardship of the world and the climate they turned their backs on him. — praxis

A foreign Catholic in a dress? I should think so! Anyway, there's only one Religion and that's not it.

But their libertarian-like obsession with "FREEDOM" glaringly shows their liberalism. — praxis

Well then, that's another word we can throw away. Pretty soon, we'll have a vocabulary the size of Trump's genius IQ.

This is supposed to be a philosophy forum. You should be able to offer more than your moral indignation. — baker

I was asked for an opinion and I gave it.
What moral indignation? If you do not yet understand that making life healthier and happier and more secure for the people living it as sufficient purpose, that video would not get you any closer to understanding it, so there's no point watching it.
And, as I am not a certified philosopher, neither can I give you sufficient explanation.

So, how would you defend yourself and others against such? — universeness

I could not. A national consensus, or at least overwhelming majority, has to make provisions in its peace-keeping and law-enforcement agencies to prevent the rise of dictators. Where a dictator and his enablers have already been put into power, whether by an internal or external force, the average citizen has no defence.

I disagree. I think the 'kill kill kill the bastards,' is exactly what those who employ terror and horror tactics intended to invoke. They just don't think the response will/can reach them directly but will achieve the ends they desire — universeness

This may be true of small, localized acts of terror carried out in anonymously, far from the terrorists' own base of operations. Even there, if their identities and base are discovered - or strongly suspected - the much greater force of retaliatory strike falls on their comrades, family and friends.
How do you figure it works in a dictatorship? The police kick your door down at 4am, drag your parents away after giving you a few whacks with their rifle-butts. Every fibre in your body screams for retribution. Whom do you attack? And with what? And how would that serve the regime?

Yes, so how can we learn to recognise when that old result is recurring again and learn how to take wiser action and not respond to horror/terror by terrorising and performing horrific acts? — universeness

How can you tell if you're about flip out? You can't - or it would never happen.

I found this, but I don't know if any serious scientific study on this, has been done: — universeness

And I hope nobody ever undertakes one. Statistics only, please - no experimentation!!

So what do people in those "more equal" societies do with all that social trust, health, wellbeing, etc.? What do they use them for? — baker

Living. If you want something different, ask someone else who, if they have different values from yours, are either naive or lying, so you'll never get a satisfactory answer.

(And I can't view the video you posted, it's not available where I am.)

No matter! You wouldn't understand it.

Those who choose to employ horror and terror, to achieve a goal, obviously must believe that such methods can be very successful. Do you think such methods are successful? — universeness

Yes, very often, though obviously not always.
You have to distinguish between a single act of terror, or threat of violence, and a long-term, consistent application of fear for control. (See Orwell's 1984) Think, for example of abused children. Terror becomes, for them, not a momentary state of mind, but a staple of their existence: habitual. This is true also of entire peoples under a ruthless dictatorship.

Is my almost automatic reaction of 'Kill Kill Kill the bastards that did this to my loved one!' and 'Kill everything they stand for and represent,' and 'Get revenge!' Exactly what those who use horror and terror want? — universeness

No, and they count on it never coming to pass. Sometimes they're wrong: the Jacobins and Bolsheviks do sometimes act in unison and mobilize the masses, and the results are neither justice nor simple revenge, but pandemonium. People pushed that far down into the darkness of their psyche are capable of anything but reason.
The urge to vengeance seems more compelling to men than to women - on the average. In all the cases of homicide by a long-suffering wife, I've known only one where the abusive husband ended up with multiple stab wounds. Usually, it's just the one gash or shot or hammer-blow, unless he keeps coming. Maybe his car or big screen get smashed, sometimes his clothes cut to ribbons: damage to his property, not his family. Whereas, the men who caught up with fleeing wives and girlfriends on many occasions that I knew of, killed her parents, friends, lover or whoever helped her get away.

Does anyone know of any example of human style 'vengeance,' being sought by any other species on Earth, other than humans? — universeness

The instances I know are of domestic animals taking revenge on humans. I don't mean fighting back or resisting, but biding their time for an opportunity to get back at somebody who wronged them in some way. A horse may nip or side-swipe a rough stable-hand whenever he gets the chance, but won't trample anyone to death except in a blind rage. Cats I've known to do deliberate mischief to a human who offended them, and one of our dogs shat in the middle of our bed after she'd been punished. I've heard of elephants holding a grudge for years against bad handlers, just as they retain affection for good ones. Goat are notorious for butting anyone who has mistreated them, at any opportunity.

After my initial thoughts, it seemed so 'correct' to me that the 'kill, kill kill the bastards, and 'I must take total revenge on all they care about!' was what we must learn not to do, if we want to survive as a species. — universeness

Individually, we have done surprisingly well at letting the law or God carry out our vengeance. In groups, we have much less self-control; in mobs, none at all.

I merely wondered whether there was something you intended to discuss.

Yes. And?

individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion, constitutional government and privacy rights. — praxis

Therefore, no relation to the GOP since Nixon.

We started with me asking about "the inevitable devolution of events from 1963 to the present". I'm still curious about that. — praxis

The rise of progressive liberalism? — praxis

That's what confused me. Now I see. The response of the conservatives to Johnson's reforms prompted the intentional divisiveness of the Nixon campaign, and then Carter's progressivism prompted the Reagan/Bush backlash, and Clinton caused Bush II and the progressive shock of Obama opened the sluice to the Trump disaster....
Yes, I see that. But I really can't envision what calamity can possibly trump that, short of civil war... unless, of course, the global edifice of ego-cards blows away before it can get started.

In summary, progressive liberalism tends to favor a more active government role in addressing social and economic issues, — praxis

Yes, that's what I used to think liberalism was. It did rise for a little while, c. 1960-1980. But what's that got to do with the conservatives' downhill slide from Gerald Ford to Donald Trump?

Conservatives tend to be more cautious about social change and may be resistant to significant shifts in cultural norms or values. They often uphold traditional family values and may oppose policies like same-sex marriage or drug legalization. — praxis

Yes, that's what it means - in principle, anyway. But conservative liberals is an oxymoron.

Conservative liberals often advocate for a more restrained foreign policy, favoring non-interventionism and a focus on national sovereignty. They may be skeptical of international organizations and military interventions. — praxis

Like the Bushes?

I guess what I’m thinking is that substantial economic pain can lead to civil war but a mere slogan only gets a guy wearing a pair of horns to force his way into the chambers of congress for a few hours. — praxis

There was no substantial economic pain before the last civil war, just fear. Lots of economic pain afterward, though - the Confederacy dug itself into a huge financial hole.
And there was more going on that day than the one guy wearing horns in that incident.
The death threats against judges and senators don't seem to have thinned out, either.

Nonsensical populism that I doubt anyone actually buys. — praxis

If nobody buys it, how does it qualify as populism? Plus, he got a lot of pretty grotesque legislation passed.

The South has a certain character, and it is informed by sin, suffering, ostracization, and an imputed inferiority (as this thread demonstrates). — Leontiskos

Don't forget its rich and lucrative Black, Native and French culture. Gods know the antebellum aristocracy, in slavish imitation of English gentry, didn't contribute much flavour to southern anything.

Question 1: Do you take the book? Why or why not? — Count Timothy von Icarus

No, thank you. I don't even keep all my socks in one drawer; a single source of unreliable information would be worse than having to rely on experience alone. Reliable manuals on how to do things are readily available, and those people who require answers that correspond to their opinion already have their broadcast media. I see the magic book as superfluous.