During the covid fiasco I can’t think of any law that prevented tyranny and despotism. Rather, through the dictate of those who thought they knew better, it was used to prevent people from the most innocent of social activities, like going to church and visiting loved ones. Such an event proves that even in the most liberal societies the law will be turned against the people should it suit the authorities. — NOS4A2

How is protecting the people from their own and their neighbours' stupidity turning against them? How does it "suit the authorities" to lose revenue while they're having to expend enormous resources on saving people's lives?

At any rate, good faith (and manners in general) is a kind of law in itself. But it can only be self-imposed. As such, to implement it one must be somewhat independent, self-reliant, — NOS4A2

Like those who pre-empt or voluntarily comply with medical advice during epidemics?

That your good faith is so quick to disappear in a thread on good faith is disappointing, but kind of proves the point. — NOS4A2

Expressing amusement at a second face is not a breach of faith.

If I spent all day fishing and put my haul down for a moment to take a slash, I'm gonna be pretty upset to find my fish missing when I'm done. — flannel jesus

If you refuse to share and others are hungry, that's exactly what will happen. You can get upset, and a fragmented, selfish society will shrug and walk past you: "Finders keepers, losers weepers." That same society will send designated law-enforcers after the thief if he takes the fish from your kitchen. But a caring community would ask the one who took it why he thought his need was so much greater and yours, and ask you why you didn't offer a hungry compatriot some of your fish, then decide who is in the wrong.

Even apes have a sense of ownership. — flannel jesus

They can be quite protective of their food, especially treats, and whatever toy they happen find interesting at the moment. But once they're bored with the toy, it's fine for another ape to have a turn.

I don't think there's any point in homo sapiens history where someone is happy to lose their days work to a stranger for nothing. — flannel jesus

But before that, there was a point - a quite large splotch, in fact - when people were happy to work, in teams or individually at all the tasks required for the welfare of their community. That's the big difference: in a sharing society, you never work for a stranger (there aren't any) and you're never underpaid.

He was saying that when cities pile up riches, they're practically asking to be raided. — frank

Which certainly proved historically true. There is also another aspect to amassing treasure: it had to come from somewhere - through somebody's effort, or somebody's loss - and those people are naturally motivated to take it back, along with maybe a strip of your hide.

I guess another way to put his point is that there is no theft until there is ownership. — frank

Quite true. Hardly anyone is tempted to take another person's clothes or tent, unless they're in dire need of it. A mindful society makes sure that doesn't happen, simply by providing for all its members. Treasure amassing is partly a result of the lust for power. Once society is stratified enough to isolate its wealth under the control of a few people, it becomes the highest ambition to be one of those people - not the strongest, wisest, most skilled or best loved, but the richest. Another large part of amassing is compulsive or pre-emptive: the urge to grab everything you can before somebody else does. That's symptomatic of an indifferent society.

And there's no murder until someone invents a law that defines murder and says it's disallowed. — flannel jesus

Yes, that's right. People have always killed one another in various mental states, for various reasons and by various methods. Some forms of killing were socially condoned, or even mandated (as in ritual sacrifice or dispatching a dangerous enemy) and some were forbidden and required atonement, restitution, treatment or banishment. Such cases of private killing were usually considered by a meeting of elders and the outcome decided case by case, as each such incident is unique.
Only when it's defined and categorized in law does the process of justice become industrial.

I tried to clarify the modern distinctions early on. One could look at it as a hierarchy: design, craft, functional art, fine art, where each prior step is a prerequisite. You need sound design and skill to craft a good chair, sound craftsmanship plust creativity to produce an artistic chair, all three to elevate the chair to something more than a chair.

Compare these two items by William de Kooning and Louise Nevelson. — BC

I expect both skill and effort from an artist, and a little subtlety doesn't go amiss. I've never understood the appeal of de Kooning or Pollock (though his scribbles are more interesting, why keep making them?) or Rothko.
The thing I find most odd is that all these painters actually learned the craft, began with real pictures, made with skill and attention. But they were noticed only after they departed from traditional painting methods and started producing meaningless splashes and instead. That's what sold in the late 20th century.

Duchamp's route to a social statement was more vulgar and direct, but it worked. He helped move art forward and legitimize alternative means of expression. — Baden

And there's the tragedy. It's not enough to produce novelty, or shock or disgust, even to make a social statement. Anyone can do that with a placard or public display. Without artistry, what we get instead of works of art are vials of feces and piles of plastic garbage. Those exhibitions seems to me contrived for effect, inauthentic, as well as without aesthetic merit.

What sells now seems to be transitional - nods and winks to Rothko, Pollock, Picasso, Mondrian and Grandma Moses and Banksy - but also some really nice original stuff that connects artists and viewer through genuine experience. I think fine art has begun to swing back toward the figurative, representational and semi-abstract. I wish music could would go back to being musical, rather than mechanized.

Definitions of enemy may vary. Objects in mirror are more grotesque than they seem.

But are you saying in the final analysis Idol doesn't fit into any category even of "the arts" but is rather, an assortment etc. ? — ENOAH

Pretty much. "The Arts" is a very broad classification of enterprises. Some of the products that are categorized under that heading, I don't consider art.
I think of the show somewhat like I think of the frame for a painting. Some or all of the content may be art, but the frame is just a good or bad mass-produced frame.

"Good programs" mean large audiences (eyeballs) and profit for the platform (CBS, Netflix, whatever). Bad programs have paltry audiences and little income. — BC

Not really. 'Good' and 'successful' are not synonyms. Some of the best television programs I've seen either didn't make it to a second season, or were ruined by a change of direction to make them more successful.

Now there is a difference between Great Performances on PBS (high quality cheese) and schlock on the networks and cable (Velveeta). But networks don't want to feed the masses with high quality French cheese. Let them eat caca. — BC

The masses must prefer Velveeta (or even caca) or they would support PBS.

Isn't that true for most programs? — BC

No. It's true of reality shows that feature performances by non-professionals. Talk shows, news magazine shows and comedy shows are in their own categories. Scripted fictional stories are another category. That one can be considered under the art form Cinema, and judged by the same criteria as Woman of the Dunes and Howard the Duck.

Personally, I have a hard time separating art, including mediocre art, from good entertainment. — T Clark

That's only because modern media can produce entertaining art and artistic entertainment.

Americal Idol probably is not art but the individual performances may be. — T Clark

My sentiments exactly! I've heard a few skilled, talented, moving performances on that show. But I tend to mix them up with America's Got Talent - and so have lots of other countries, apparently - where I've seen some really original and creative acts.

You have your sources of information and statistics, I imagine.
Therefore, war crimes are justified.
[end thread]

I want your house, Benkei. I'll be open to negotiations once you grant me your living room. Will you negotiate with me? — BitconnectCarlos

Is that a quote from Ben-Gurion?

When oppressors rule, there are always victims - some willing, some random, some too slow to flee. You're okay with killing any number of incidental civilians who happen to live in a town or a city block where an enemy leader might perhaps be staying or a weapon may perhaps be stored...
but only when the much stronger combatant commits that war crime.

Again, it seems like America is the way it is because of competitiveness and with that its most cherished activity being capitalism. Would you agree with my assumptions here? — Shawn

In this instance, unreservedly.
There is some very bad weather in the USA and more of it coming this way. Not just from the capitalist winner-loser mindset, but from the culture of confrontation.

Just a belated note on courtesy. I suspect there is a divide between big city behaviour and rural behaviour. As an old person in our smallish city beyond commuter range of a big one, I don't feel ignored or sidelined. Sure, the adolescents on the street are lost in their phones and oblivious to anyone outside their tribe, but young adults are invariably polite. At the hardware or feed store, someone always offers to carry my heavier purchases to to the car. They open doors, reach items off high shelves and even go around the other way without comment if two old women (not me!) block the isle chatting or deciding what they want.
(Besides, I like their colourful tattoos and funky hair and their optimism.)

If it is art, then it can be criticized as art. Is American Idol "good art"? — BC

It can be criticized as a television program. Television programs have their own separate criteria to consider them good or bad. In that category, American Idol is actually pretty good - or was, back when I watched it.

But most of the content is not of the show itself, and none of the artistic content is. The performances are brought by the contestants. Some performances were outstanding; some were mediocre, some were (to my mind) very bad.

Among reality shows, it was probably the best, simply due to the quality of performance art by individual contestant. I have not watched very many reality shows, since most of the ones I sampled were boring, juvenile, mean or in bad taste - sometimes all of those. Art - as distinguished from artifice - is rarely involved in either the production or the content.

What is Israel supposed to do? You tell me. — BitconnectCarlos

Stop killing civilians. Stop settling territories that don't belong to them. Stop being recalcitrant and sabotaging negotiations. Stop barricading Gaza. Stop supporting Hamas. Then we'll see how things progress.

We can go further back: the Arabs colonised Palestine too. — neomac

Which "Arabs"? When? Coz, if you want further back, we can consult Deuteronomy.
Of course, that response was to the issue of self-determination, not who settled where in pre-history.

Haven't done that for a long time. Had one positive and one really shitty experience in IT contract work. In the latter, a corporation - don't know what size - was ripping off a municipal government, but we got out unscathed. IBM Canada was mostly okay, faith-wise, if not in executive decisions; a couple of other US subsidiaries were more or less inefficient and top-heavy. We always got paid, but were not always happy.

Yet, what about all this "hustle culture" stuff going on? — Shawn

It's not going on in my neighbourhood. People out here usually get 'round, sooner or later, to doing whatever they contracted to do, usually do it conscientiously and efficiently, once they get started, but then, like as not, forget to wait for payment. Our snow-ploughing guy never invoices us at the end of winter; we send him a few email reminders, then nothing happens until the first big snowfall, when he shows up and quotes a surprisingly low figure for last season. You can't get better faith than that.
I'm nut sure I put a whole lot of credence in these recently coined 'cultures'. I suspect they're an internet phenomenon, rather than a way of actual life. Or maybe it's a localized thing.

I doubt they need much instruction beyond the regular Israeli bombardments.


The whole situation is one of the many dark sides of colonialism. Britain promises everything to everybody in order to further its own war effort and then arbitrarily disenfranchises some of its allies, while enabling other groups. They did the same with natives in North America and Africa a few decades or centuries earlier. All that guff about self-determination went on the scrap heap when the Big Four were carving up Europe after WWI, and and the even bigger three redrew the borders after WWII.

do you think addressing feelings as their neurological processes are the only correct way? — ENOAH

Yes, I do. I know of no plausible alternate source for feelings.

Do you think that the representations generated by our brains are no less real than the neurons which generate them? — ENOAH

Representations are not 'real' in the same sense as the things being represented or the entity making the representation; however, the media in which art is physically expressed are real. The internal visualization is real to the imaginer, but does not exist in the world.
"Real" is a tricky little word.

For purposes of classification, the arts are usually divided into fine art (representations that have no practical function, but are created only for aesthetic/psychological value) performing arts (the creation of artfully presented ephemeral experiences) crafts (skillfully created functional items) design (creative re-imagining of mundane practical items) and lately something called 'artisanal' which applies to non-factory products like beer and bread.
What you have there is an assortment of performances within the framework of a commercial production.

I am amazed that art, which is a representation of representation, — ENOAH

It's not. It's a representation of reality in some altered form.

can so profoundly affect the body to feel, — ENOAH

Not the body. Our reaction to art, or any external sensory input, is through the receptors (mainly eyes and ears) to the brain, and whatever emotional response the brain then produces may or may or may produce some physical reaction.

without having to have recourse to any immediate constructions. — ENOAH

What does that mean?

The directness, and the potency of art's affect on reality (I.e., us) moves me. — ENOAH

It's not just art has that effect; it can be nature, speech, action in the environment. That's because the neural functions are very fast. We're not aware of how much information is received, sorted, processed, stored and transmitted by our brain in a single second.

I must unashamedly confess, at moments, it profoundly moved me, — ENOAH

The show format or a specific performance? They're separate entities. Each performance by a contestant is artistic, even though the show itself is not.

You must accept my premises to really appreciate it in the way I'm trying to describe. However, I respect that it is difficult to accept. — ENOAH

I don't understand your premise. I don't understand all that palaver about mind being unreal, etc.

The concept of bona fide, which is sincere intention to be fair, open, and honest in interactions, still exist in society and human interactions? — Shawn

Of course. They take place in every supermarket, at every pedestrian crossing, in every bank, school, hospital and home every hour of the day. Were it not so, society would unravel and cease to function.

So then, what's all this about? Seems like entirely different subject matter.

Mind is not reality.

Mind is, at best, reality, once removed.

Art is "lower" in the "hierarchy of truth".

Art is Mind, once removed; reality, twice removed.

And yet, like Mind, art triggers reality to feel/act. — ENOAH

Is art objectively identifiable? — ENOAH

Of course it is. But nobody seems satisfied with an objective definition

the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

No, a reality show doesn't fit the definition of art. It has none of the artistic components: acting, writing, directing, cinematography. In this one and dance contests, the contestants' performances may be considered art, good or bad art, but not the format itself.

Sorry, I didn't get much beyond the OP question. It didn't seem relevant.

Well, then, it's all hunky-dory innit? Everybody getting what they need and want.

If Gaza became a state Hamas would be able to import whatever it liked. — BitconnectCarlos

What, like food, medicine, building material? Assuming they could afford it and somebody were willing to sell it to them.
And that's a pretty good reason for Bibi to keep Hamas in place, isn't it?

The Israelis currently see a two state solution as infeasible because of the current palestinian gazan government/populace which are committed to the destruction of Israel. Give Israel a viable negotiating partner that isn't committed to its destruction and Israel will talk. — BitconnectCarlos

Viable = too weak to get even the minimum of their requirements? Palestine cannot be any kind of threat to Israel with its vast arsenal and foreign backing. At its most outraged, it can only ever be a nuisance and an excuse for Israeli governments to keep their country in a state of perpetual war, in a state of existential crisis. At least until all the Palestinians are dead and there's no more challenge to their occupation of whatever lands they want. It worked in the OT.... until a big empire came and gobbled them all up.

Still, I'd argue much of our core "driving factors" remain the same. Fears, desires, motivations, and whatnot. More refined, tailored to the specific going-ons and happenings of the modern world, existential anxieties and concerns of not seeing a tomorrow all but corralled to the back of one's subconscious, of course. But in essence, much of the same. — Outlander

Agreed. In fact, I outlined all those things in the first couple of pages of this thread. Hominids are pattern-seeking and classifying thinkers. All I'm saying is that we moderns process the input through very different filters from our ancestors. One main difference is the enormous weight of historical and cultural baggage we carry, compared to their fresh, uncluttered world-view.

Certainly agree with earlier society, those fortunate enough to have such, being more connected with one another out of necessity of proximity to life-sustaining goods and services and other "tight-knit" circumstance contributing to the resiliency and defense of said society's existence, in contrast to the modern world and it's "just text me" or "add me on Facebook" norms of interaction. — Outlander

They cemented their bonds with ritual, just as we do. For us, however, the various rituals are isolated - one for family, a different one for the workplace, for the male or female friends, for sporting events and mass entertainments, and that special, set-aside, encapsulated one for worship. For them, drumming and dancing around the fire included all those social and spiritual aspects of their community.
I do think modern people cling to religion, not so much for their spiritual aspirations or solace, but as an antidote the fragmentation of their daily life.

Put yourself in the shoes of primeval man, or even modern man, a distinction I find to be quite fleeting to say the least. — Outlander

The distinction is profound and lasting. Primeval man had no shoes and very little assurance of a tomorrow. His barefoot world was unrecognizably different from the plate-glass and styrofoam world of modern man. His anxieties and aspirations were different. His world-view and dreams were different. His Purpose was to survive and, at a stretch, to keep most of his loved ones alive, but he was not at odds with or alienated from his environment and community. He was never alone or adrift.

All ACA (affordable care act) plans require prenatal coverage even when coverage is sought while pregnant — Hanover

That's 40 million people, of whom how many are women of reproductive age? I don't know the particulars of employee health coverage, but it's probably worth closing any potential loopholes.

You're fighting a battle that was won in 2014. — Hanover

The 'conservative' states are still fighting battles that were won in the 1960's. African Americans are still fighting battles that were supposedly won in the 1860's. Can't take our eyes off the ball for a minute!

Garbage bags that refuse to open.

Pregnant women are not sick, but they still need care. I think it makes sense that that care is provided through the medical care system. — T Clark

What makes sense to a normal person may not make cents to an insurance company.

It's as if they're trying to turn the israeli public against their cause and push them more to the right. i do believe this is hamas's strategy. — BitconnectCarlos

It sure works for "Bibi". "We're at war!" has kept more than one corrupt politician in power and out of jail.

It's about getting around the legal/religious obstacles to coverage for women who don't want to be pregnant, and to make sure that private insurance cannot be denied those who do.
For example, doctors would be able to prescribe birth control pills or morning after pills "for the prevention of disease", the same as they prescribe medication for [other] STD's.

If you were LGBTQ and you had to live in a random Muslim dominated country or random Western country, which would it be? — RogueAI

Bad regimes a-plenty. Russia and Uganda, both predominantly Christian - and that's just in the present. We don't exactly know yet how the conservative backlash, so tough on women lately, will play out in the western countries.
And, of course, that has nothing whatever to do with war crimes.
There are plenty of reasons to dislike theocracies and official state religions.
But war crimes are also committed by secular nations.

You disagree that oil, strategic location and the routes to gold, ivory and spices existed before 600AD?
Or that they were important then as they are still?

I think Islam has been a huge drag on the development of the Arab states — RogueAI

Not in its first thousand years, while Christianity was being a huge drag on Europe.

and a huge factor in the development of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. — RogueAI

Obviously. Whatever threat a military or militant organization is created to counter, religion has a great deal of influence on recruitment and popular support. That worked for Israel.

If the absence of Islam, I think we'd be seeing something more akin to Ireland's troubles. — RogueAI

Except that the factions in Ireland didn't include big international players like Russia and the US. Britain may have given the lands of Catholic peasants to imported Protestants, but a foreign world power was not constantly pumping enormous quantities of arms and money into Ulster.

There are no black hats and white hats; no 'peaceful' religions; no ethical choices.

You think we'd be dealing with the same issues if Muhammad had never been born? — RogueAI

Of course. The oil was there long before Muhammad; so were the strategic harbours and trade routes. Religion is a cover story - one that's been very effective for millennia.

Is aging a disease?

But this does suggest a somewhat interesting question:
How are medical conditions classified?
How are 'illness', 'disease', 'malady', 'affliction' and 'disorder' different? How are the words used in medical science? Generally, anything that presents with symptoms of pain, abnormal expulsion of biomass, elevated temperature, etc. is an illness or sickness. The word disease usually denotes an illness, usually contagious, caused by pathogens. Malady and affliction are usually applied to chronic, non-life-threatening conditions, such as allergy or migraine. A disorder may be a genetic or developed condition that presents as non-lethal malfunction or disability.

Obviously, pregnancy is a naturally occurring condition which can be healthy and normal or abnormal and unhealthy. In the first case, it requires no medical intervention to run its course and have a successful result. We humans intervene anyway, because our evolutionary path has complicated the human reproductive functions with this bipedal innovation; pregnancy and birth are more difficult than they were for our ancestors. In that sense dis ease could apply.

Maybe so, but that didn't sound like satire. The situation in Palestine and the Middle East in general is not the doing of one nation or one religion. Everyone who lives there (with the possible exception of a few truly evil leaders) is the victim of international events that started a very long time before they themselves were born. The major world powers have been playing silly buggers in the region for over two thousand years and won't stop any time soon.
And then, of course, one has to wonder whether one can take at face value anything Mr. Netanyahu says in public.

As long as one is wondering... Why does every discussion go from thought experiment to WWII to Israel?

And when a Palestinian man beats his wife it is surely the Jews' fault as well. It's because of the occupation. — BitconnectCarlos

Actually, it might be a contributing factor. What about the Israeli woman who beats her husband?
Domestic situations are on a different scale from international situations, but both are far more complex than the you have represented.
Jews and Arabs have a history - a whole lot more of it than either of them have has had with Europe, and I'm including the Greek and Roman conquests. That land has been fought over more than any other in the world, with the possible exception of a few corners of Africa and Asia.

That's the typical way people describe Civil Wars: that people simply became insane. — ssu

There is nothing simple about that process. Even more complicated is the fact that most of those people are not insane individually, in their daily life, even while holding insane ideas to be worth defending with their lives.
The situation builds up slowly, at first almost imperceptibly; it grows and spreads and breeds crazy ideas, crazy narratives, twisted versions of reality. Then it begins to cast to the surface leaders appropriate to that dysfunction. Once those leaders take firm hold of a faction, there is rarely a peaceful way back from the brink to which they lead the people.

Never happen. — RogueAI

Maybe some other catastrophe will intervene. More likely a major climate event than Mars attacking.

The federal government is too large and has its fingers in too many pies. — RogueAI

Even the biggest trees fall if their pith is chewed by enough termites. Government agencies are vulnerable to funding and political appointments, as well as loss of public confidence. It's easy enough to promise the people a better health insurance and more social security. Don't have to deliver...
Once a crazy idea is planted, the next step is fantasy, then desire, then intention, then action. From idea to desire is a very small step. From there to intention, most people require a push. That incentive is usually supplied by a big mouth, who may very well hide in his mansion while the action is taking place.

I sympathize. Hungary is under a pretty shitty government, too. I'm very lucky to have left a long time ago. But I don't feel safe here anymore, either. The insanity is everywhere, and I don't think it will go away until a lot more international and civil wars have killed a lot more people. I can see the US heading for CWII in the very near future.

Are such "scorched Earth" tactics a war crime? — BitconnectCarlos

It depends on whose land you're scorching.