Re-read:
A Day In The Life of Ivan Denisovich;
Of Mice and Men/Cannery Row;
The Crying of Lot 49; and
The Problems Of Philosophy (about 11 pages to go) this year.

I think both of you are supremely missing hte crux of why these two (general) camps cannot see eye to eye: they see things from different perspectives and 'broadness' is basically the only relevant determinate.
Whenever i've pinned down a (at least self-identified) conservative on some particular issue, it turns out mostly they have coherent but, for me, erroneous values. If you truly believe a bare zygote (as such) is a human being worthy of all moral rights a post-birth baby is, that explains that belief without any recourse to some kind of knuckle-dragging 'retrenchment' concept coming into it. This applies to most issues - homelessness, civil rights, etc... as they affect the person and their closest relatives and friends only (in general). Their approach to the moral boundaries of sex is a perfect example of this.
However, there are two areas where I think these sorts of comments (the post posts above(three i guess)) are totally apt: LGBT stuff - I think, in reality, what's happened is what old mate says in book quoted by frank. But what the 'right' see, is something other than what's actually happened and they seem to be willfully pushing a narrative that supports that erroneous basis. The other is drugs. That one is fraught, given that staunch anti-drug sentiments also exist even in harder-left-leaning minds. But it seems obvious that they still want the same thing liberals want with regard to drugs - reduced harm.

Whenever I have pinned down a (at least, self-identified) "leftist" the only thing I can discern from their arguments beyond "yep, that sounds reasonable" is that they truly don't care about the 'facts' or counterintuitive thinking. They want the broadest possible benefit for the the widest number of people - excluding those who do not believe what they do - and often at the expense of their closest family and friends (in general). Luigi Mangioni and the absolutely morally bankrupt response from most leftists exemplify this.
But Race is an area where I cannot get anything reasonable out of a leftist. It's probably hte one issue I think "the right" sort of approaches from the right place but hten just gets caught up in social media-type vying for likes. A shame, really. Conversations should start from "what do you want to achieve" and taken at face value. Inconsistencies would actually help change someone's views if they know, that you know, that they want the same things. No one is immune to 'missing something'.

So, you can see that this is just a vicious cycle of poo-pooing each other's value set. It will, and could, not get anywhere.

Totally wild - not unexpected

Want to be very clear, that 'trans' isn't relevant to why I think this is wild. But it is somewhat relevant to why I think its unexpected, inb4 'BIGOT'. This IS wild. However you look at it.

It's good to see process being talked about. When I read P&R I reached out here for some thoughts/discussion and nothing came of it. Appreciate these threads.

You could all just stay here, and let that thread do what it's meant to do -= allow for all discussion around climate change. Echo chambers aren't helpful, and are essentially anti-philosophical in terms of enquiry. Having an extremely intense emotional reaction to someone's input is not a problem of the thread title LMAO. Even when you're 'correct' as to why.

For me, the straight answer to this is that, with more restriction and more direction, this is what's happening in waking life anyway. There are those who would reject this on the basis of the difference between perceiving 'actual things' and perceiving say 'ideas' or 'memories'. I don't see as much of one there.
Perhaps the question of how this occurs, in either case, is the real question - and one that seems, hitherto, unable to even be approached reasonably by intellect.

This is potentially hte most ironic post I've seen in months. Nice.

Sounds like the first line was all that was needed to me

Those fellas certainly do LOL.

Still very relevant. Not particularly well read - and he has the awkward problem of most people reading him being dumb late-high-school, early-University edgelords who think his philosophy will deliver them from their internal shortcomings.

I think he was just.. a bit silly.

On it's plain wording, it seems impossible to say 'no'.

I ignored most of your post because it was little more than whining. — Darkneos

Well that's where this ends. I suppose its good you've made clear your attitude early in your career here.

There are parts of this response that are going to come off combative - I would implore you to not assess every line as an attack. You have clearly misread much of comment, and are attempting things that are not open on the level of Socratic dialogue.
I have not given my own positions, other than trying to help you navigate the conversation. In terms of Whitehead/process philosophy I have been purposefully vague and indeterminate on how I think his philosophy plays out (save for one thing which I will note where it is relevant (nearer the end)). So please do you best to come into this, not as some hard-ass dismissing every attempt to convince you - that is not what is happening. Obviously, no one will convince you. I am trying to do what you asked, which has nothing to do with that.

It’s sorta hard to regard this well because Gnomon not only doesn’t understand (or read) the things they cite but to think Terence McKenna is a better thinker than 80% of the forum is a red flag to me. I’ve read McKenna's stuff and it’s effectively nonsense. — Darkneos

I apologise, but you need to carefully re-read what has been written. You are not responding to things I've actually said here. Every aspect of this response misunderstands the plain language of my comment. Please re-read and, if you want, have another go. Hint: I am in your firing line, not Gnomon).

I also note that these are assertions of your emotional responses to things, and not arguments. Poisoning the well, if you will. However, in kind, the bolded is a pretty dire red-flag to me. To turn your words:
"just because something is dense and hard to understand doesn’t make it good bad (either)".

That said, we can disagree. No worries. I would just suggest something like "I've read McKenna's stuff" wont be taken too seriously with such a flippant and empty(not pejorative!) take on it. Not that you're a dick or anything, but that's nothing to chew on other than to think "Oh, this guy is predisposed to reject McKenna's thinking". Which is fine, but unhelpful - but that was a throwaway/aside remark on which absolutely nothing in the comment turns.

This is more about you not about me. Like I said I’m trying to understand this but so far people are really bad at explaining it, and I’ve asked everywhere. — Darkneos

I think you are doing what I've just said you're doing. You are not hearing that people have done what you've asked (like myself below, but your responses show you are not seeing this). You are dissatisfied. That's fine. Ironically, that is something about yourself. Not those commenters (though, your claim isn't precluded. I just don't see the evidence for it).

Not exactly. — Darkneos

This response is a side-step into territory I did not agree to. I have given you an account, as asked(inferentially and explicitly). I have not claimed it is 'good', 'successful' or even interesting Philosophy in that passage. I have given you the account you asked for. Your response goes into analysis based on reference to other people's work and an apparent assumption about my position on Whitehead's work. Does not seem an apt response to that account. If you could perhaps explain how "Not exactly" applies to my account of his philosophy (particularly given you claim to not understand it, but are telling others how it works), that would be helpful. Paradox rears its head.

Like I said I’m trying to understand this — Darkneos

This simply does not come through in your responses, like the one above. Please take note of that, and reflect on it. If you're not accurately conveying your thoughts, that's just as much a criticism that needs your attention as would be that said "you're wrong". I don't care about hte latter - but the former appears to be the consensus. Perhaps just take a moment with it..

Not really. — Darkneos

This passage is, again, a response to things I have not said. That is what his theory applies to, and wants to talk about. Your agreement or disagreement is not relevant to an account of it.

t might appear as such but that doesn’t make it so — Darkneos

Your consistent assertions to the opposite, without much to follow on, do not negate that account either. Interestingly, I'm not talking about that. That is simply an account. I do not know how many more times this will need to be pointed out... But I would really appreciate if you could refrain from commenting on a bare account as if it is some analysis. It gets us no where but thinking you are not accurately reading these comments.

Well the thing is that it’s not scientifically obvious. — Darkneos

If you can point me to any object which is unchanging, interminable and non-becoming (as it were) id be happy to hear it. But that would be an anomaly. It is scientifically obvious that all things are always in flux. That's what I've noted, and there's no serious way to disagree with this. Whitehead's account of that fact is what (may or may not.... I think almost certainly) fails to do us any good, scientifically.

Change and creative process aren’t fundamental because you need source material before any of that. — Darkneos

Argue with Whitehead about that. I didn't claim that was true.

It seems like his philosophy incoherent when it comes to some aspects and breaks down in others. — Darkneos

That may be hte case. I tend to agree. Its helpful to understand experience (well, to those disposed to get much from it anyway) - not 'the world'. I agree its rather impenetrably, and where it is, there are inconsistencies. (see, this is my giving you a position on the philosophy).

Is there any way to avoid writing on something too similar to someone else given the anonymity? Or do we not care?

Haven't read the whole thread - skimmed, and sought your most recent takes before replying.

You are alternately taking Whitehead too seriously, and not seriously enough. Gnomon has done a fairly good job, but its pricklier than I would have responded having not gone through the thread.
I think, but could be wrong, the most recent and most visible person who pushed Whitehead's process philosophy was Terence McKenna. I probably shouldn't need to say more - while I think McKenna is a much, much better thinker and writer than probably 80% of this forum, there is no chance he is giving us anything with which we could further understand, or build on the philosophy rather than the metaphor/poetry in Whitehead's work. And that's roughly where this form of philosophy has been left.

Process & Reality is an extremely hard book to get through but it's pretty much sui generis. No need to implicate it in all these other fields and ways. If it doesn't teach you anything, that's fine. It can do for those who are trying to get something from it (I would ascribe this to most Continental philosophy too, but that's a digression).

Unfortunately, the response above this one, posted while I was writing, doesn't give me hope that you will take on board the criticisms many have leveled. That's unfortunate. I came in that hot too and assumed that not hearing what I wanted amounted to being talked past. That is a difficult hurdle to jump. This forum is largely populated (the very consistent posters anyway) with ideological people who spend more time in the politics/news type threads than elsewhere. I wouldn't think this the best place to learn how to do philosophy, or even read discussion clearly. I only joined when i started my degree, and the two have come apart in a rather extreme way.

To finish, my take on process philosophy:

It is not a 'system' the most philosophies are. It is a descriptive philosophy trying to make sense of what Whitehead sees to be 'facts' about how Humans 'become' across time (whcih is, strictly, a fact - we are never stagnant, in any sense of the word, as beings). Every individual change can be (intellectually/metaphorically) compartmentalized, incorporated and subsumed by the 'being' at any given moment. It is a necessarily vague philosophy and describes a process which is patently occurring. It take it to be attempting a poetic reading of a scientific speculation (that there are 'units' making up the 'being' which come into existences independently. The point is that 'things' are actually 'events' in constant flux of 'occurring' or 'becoming' and not 'objects' to be observed or taken as-is. In this way, change or creative process per se, is a fundamental aspect of reality/existence. He then implicates God in this process as the director, in some sense, but still part of it. So, in some sense this is scientifically obvious, but his theory extends to it being the final analysis which doesn't seem possible.

Of course there is. — Benkei

No there isn't. They are express policies of racism, sexism and bigotry. On their face, and on analysis.

It's been funny seeing people argue doing nothing resolves problems — Benkei

That's a wild leap to make. Not one which applies to me, at any rate. I have no idea what the rest of that comment is getting at/supposed to say/what the point it. Sounds like you just don't like people disagreeing with you, and so say things to convince yourself of a moral high ground.

You are correct - except when those policies are in force to remedy existing prejudicial practices. And in the US, racial prejudice dies hard, thus equality policies will have even a prophylactic function. — tim wood

You cannot solve a problem by doing the same thing which caused it (unless you're suggesting there are extant conflicting policies - some of which arbitrarily protect or raise certain groups, and some of which remedy that obvious injustice - but obviously, that's batshit to claim). And the proof is already in the pudding on this one, anyhow. It's not really an 'opinion' issue anymore.

This phenomena isn't unique to the far-right. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Its not unique at all.

I said I disagreed about the Bishop. Not quite sure why you're asking about Trump's post?
oh for fucks sake there's absolutely nothign defensible about sex and race based hiring or policy practices.

Ari's "golden mean" is something of a fallacy when taken out of context -- the middle between extremes isn't going to be true or false just cuz it's in the middle. — Moliere

No, of course. BUt Ari's mean is to do with extremes of behaviour, for the most part. Not the truth or falsity of something. The whole "your story, my story, and then the truth" is clearly bogus for your reasons though!

I want to point out, this is now quite off topic. It will become clear I see no reason to continue this, so take these responses and understand I wont be coming back to this. It's clogging the thread, and is a serious bore.

Your purist argument is true, but I don't believe one person in ten thousand would enter a courtroom as a mute defendant without a defense attorney. — ucarr

Then you do not know a whole lot about court cases.

If the defense could win their cases with simple denial, who would ever need a defense attorney? — ucarr

This is so disingenuous It's really hard to give you the time of day. I did not intimate this was the case. I did not intimate this was 'common'. I did not intimate that this was even relevant.

The answer to this clearly irrelevant question though is thus:
In almost any case that might eventually require a trial is preceded by several hearings. Probable cause, disputed facts, standing etc.. etc... all need sorting.
The Judge actually has to decide whether or not the prosecution even has a case, given the evidence they want to present at trial. If the evidence isn't good enough (depending on the type of charge, the burden of guilt (probable, reasonable doubt) etc.. etc..) the judge will simply throw out the case. A plain denial is a full response, and a vindication in those cases.
In a situation where it's somewhat marginal (i.e several circumstantial pieces of evidence) it is not entirely unusual for a defendant to simply allow the Jury to see the prosecution evidence, confident it doesn't prove the charge, and twiddle their thumbs while the prosecution makes their case. What you've asserted is that I must think that there are no cases in which the prosecution has a good case. That is not the case. I did not intimate that.

I would urge you, as I did several times last year, to carefully read posts prior to replying. You often say things that aren't easy to reply to, because they aren't sensible in the context.

Both the prosecution and the defense make claims of fact they must prove — ucarr

No. The defence will only do this if they feel the need to offer an 'alternative theory' to the prosecutions theory that they committed the crime. If there's decent evidence to support the prosecution theory, defense needs to get into gear. Otherwise, why bother? No jury would convict. A single judge might have thought the evidence was compelling. A jury may not.

they must prove their absence from the scene of the crime over and above the prosecution's proof they were present at the scene of the crime. — ucarr

This is a clear example of you misunderstanding the basic tenets I pointed out. No, They do not need to 'prove their absence'. If the prosecution has no evidence they were there, the prosecution has no case. End of. Defense need do nothing. It's in cases, such as above, where there is circumstantial evidence they may have been there that the defense will bother with an alibi. Even in those cases, It's entirely possible for the defendant to rely on "beyond reasonable doubt" and present nothing. Risky as fuck though, to be sure. Most attorneys/solicitors would not want to do this.

You can be confident this is correct because a prosecutor won't initiate a case lacking solid evidence proving the guilt of the defendant — ucarr

False. Cases are often thrown out because of this, or at least don't make it to trial. I would add, the types of cases you're talking about are almost always private prosecution. Those lawyers love money. That isn't the State v XXX its XX v YY. In those situations, its usually a he-said she-said. Your position would amount to every single prosecution being successful, prior to trial. Which is as ridiculous as the notion that no defense case requires evidence. Neither of us are actually pretending we think that, I'm sure.

Without being able to plausibly meet the burden of proof, the prosecution would be thwarted by simple denial. — ucarr

This is how you lose a case, as a prosecutor. Are you under the impression that all cases come with overwhelming evidence? Or that evidence of presence could somehow be rebutted once produced at trial? Neither of these things make sense, my friend. Cases require the prosecution to meet the burden of proof. Defense does not hold this burden as they are responding to a claim. They need prove nothing. While this is obviously not relevent the USA which may be where you're basing your claims, the quote from this link is telling:

"As a defendant, you are not required to present evidence (see section 25(d) of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990). You are not required to prove that you are innocent; it is the prosecutor’s role to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty of committing the offence(s) you have been charged with."

No one but a purist thinks a mute defense is sound. — ucarr

False. You are pretending I have made a claim about all cases. Not so. And I wont take too seriously a bare assertion to the contrary. Go read some case law (this is rhetorical - you probably don't have data base access). As I said above, and you seem to have missed, Judges regularly instruct juries to make nothing of the defense producing no evidence or not testifying. This is not uncommon. This literally happens weekly, possibly daily, across various courts. Lawyers often instruct their clients not to testify because they risk saying something dumb, or revealing some secondary crime, or at the very least hurting their own credibility. If you simply don't believe me, that's fine, but you're wrong here.

Regarding how all of this relates to your naysaying my claim of contradiction by MU, am I to suppose that in a debate, you'd make a denial without supporting it, and then stand mute while your opponent advances a cogent argument against it? — ucarr

This is just as disingenuous as the previous part of your reply which was just so.

No. If you've made that of what i've said, that is a misinterpretation. One that seems, I am sorry to say, purposeful.
You made a claim. I denied it. That's the end of that, unless you want to provide support for your claim.
You failed to provide any support for your claim(on my view, to be sure). I am free to walk away denying it.
That's how it works. I am not required to answer to a claim which has not been supported. That is also how courts work, to the point that what's called "summary judgment" has been invented to cover this common circumstance. This is different to our situation though, which would be called a 'disputed facts hearing'. In this case, we would both provide evidence of hte 'facts'. The judge decides which is more likely, and from there it would perhaps be possibly to apply for a summary judgement if all facts fall on one side of the dispute. IN this case, all I need do is provide MU's statements and right-thinking person would clearly note there is no contradiction without interpolating. This is something you do with almost every post, so I am not particularly concerned there.

In this case, there is no judge. In my view, you failed to support your assertion. Therefore it was dismissed. Hitchens Razor.

These are all standard concepts. Your position is counter to them. Therefore, I am confident in leaving it here.

Why do you think a distribution of differential probabilities is not interrelated? One of the points of the distribution is to compare levels of probability. — ucarr

Once again asking the wrong question. This has nothing to do with what was disputed. THe dispute has to do with your erroneous claim of contradiction. It was erroneous. I do not need to clothe the Emperor.

MU wants to argue probability means the individual trajectories are incoherent and thus their beginning state and ending state are discontinuous. — ucarr

No. That is not hte case, from any reading I can make (including several fairly pain-staked clarifications on MU's part. I fail to see how you are not understanding those). He is saying that probability (not a distribution there of) gives an illusion of continuity between T1 and T2 where in fact, there is a gap. There was no contradiction.

Your final two paragraphs are, in this context, incoherent to me. I leave htem be. Thanks for you time.

I think Quine is just massively overthinking it — Darkneos

This is most philosophy. I think the opposite can be true, to a risible degree though (see: Searle, Austin). We need the mean (thanks, 'Stotle).

LMAO. Same shit different page.

He can just as easily change his mind this time around, and try to find a way around the SCOTUS ruling. — Relativist

Sure, but I doubt it.

I disagree about hte Bishop, and that's fine.

In a court of law, as you know, when one side says the other has made a contradictory statement, and then the side accused of making a contradictory statement says, "I did not make a contradictory statement." the judge then requires the side making the denial to prove their denial. — ucarr

Absolutely not. BUt if this is how you feel things go, then I am not surprised. Denial is a full response in court. The claim must be proved, not the denial. That is, in fact, how all debates go. In court, particularly important. Judges remind juries constantly that a defendant not providing any testimony or evidence does not indicate anything whatsoever. The entire point is that the prosecution prove their case, either on probability, or beyond reasonable doubt. At no stage, ever, does a judge require proof of denial. You're talking about disputed facts.

As you see at the top of this post, I reposted MUs statements I find contradictory. — ucarr

They clearly are not. I cannot say more.

Why do you think this probability distribution is not a relation of probability? — ucarr

You're not asking close to the correct question to address the issue. The distribution and the relation are separate properties/elements. Obviously. So, yeah. Not much else to say

Sorry I didn't include this in the earlier reply, felt it needed its own.

Re: DACA he has more recently said he's going to find ways to ensure they can stay. Otherwise, thank you.; Hadn't seen things quite so direct before.

The birthright thing... I have thoughts. I don't think that's capable of use as a cudgel.

Cancelling refugee status already granted, while adminstratively kind of sensible on paper given his differences with the Biden admin, is absurd and bordering on evil. What a shame..

Fwiw, I have no issue with teh Bishop. I have no issue with Trump having an issue with her either.

No, "DEI" is just a three-letter word to these people — Christoffer

Are you specifically referring to people for whom this is the case? Cause otherwise, you're shitshooting.

I don't know anyone who thinks DEI is a good thing, or has resulted in good things for the institutions and governments who have brought it on. I don't think its fair to simply say these people aren't thinking. I happen to agree with them, ad have quite a bit to say abnout it.

For some people, the principle of not having race-or-sex-based policy is enough. And i think that's reasonable.

That may be your experience. Plenty of DEI courses/resources/people(and some i've been forced into undergoing) are extremely discriminatory. There is a reason people aren't that keen on being told their skin colour means they are unable to do X, or cannot avoid thinking Y etc.. etc.. The very concept of 'Whiteness' in this context is despicable. You can't reverse the behaviours minorities have felt the brunt of and call it "inclusion". I think most telling, is the extreme anger and abuse that comes the way of people calmly trying to discuss this (outside of this forum).

You've also made a claim. — ucarr

No. I've rejected your claim. It does seem, unfortunately, that you misunderstand basic tenets of exchange, reason and relation. It is making things difficult. We ran into this last year, and it seems MU is getting it now. Perhaps reflect on some of these criticisms with an open mind. It seems your entire mode is to simply push-back even when things you say aren't relevant.

Why are the calculated probabilities of possible values of a variable not part of a relation of probability of possible outcomes? — ucarr

a probability distribution is not a relation of probability. MU is trying to point out that the actual probability isn't relevant to his main thrust. The thrush is that your conception of continuity is nothing but close-nit probability giving hte illusion of same. Your comments in terms of the probability issue don't seem to actually address this. They appear to claim that, despite MU talking about two aspects separately, having different consequences to the argument, that they are contradictory. I told you they are not, as did MU.

I'm not sure more can be done.

he's a naive moron who buys into ideological stuff that suits his personal beliefs. — Christoffer

That certainly seems apt. I guess I just don't heap a load of.. idk.. vitriol? On it. I recognize stupidity/awkwardness/autism and find it hard to 'charge' someone with their behaviour in that regard. That said, his position is.... making that very difficult.

Bottom line, if he continues down this path, he will become a full blown nazi. — Christoffer

I think that, however, is utterly ridiculous. The comment on him being a 'trans hater' does make clear where we might diverge, interpreting things though so no issues with it as a position in light of that. Its just ridiculous to me.

Robert Reich (someone who i think rarely says anything sensible) has penned a very good piece about Musk's issues here . I think, wildly, I agree with everything here.

His apparent logic: because some immigrants have killed people, no immigrants (nor LGBTQ) are worthy of empathy. — Relativist

Are you able to quote something that indicates any of that? I couldn't care less for the guy, but he's been pretty clearly interested in illegal immigrants, no? As for LGBT...when has he said he has lack of empathy? I'm genuinely interested. These are fairly specific claims.

You've made the claim. I don't require a supporting argument. But for clarity:

probability distribution — Metaphysician Undercover

is not

of probability — Metaphysician Undercover

a relation of probability — Metaphysician Undercover

It's clear from your words that your two statements contradict each other. — ucarr

Third party here - no, they don't.

Ontology would be, "Why is there existence?" Morality is "Should there be existence?" — Philosophim

Its not, though, because it has nothing to do with right action. It's a question about existence. You've accepted that Morality is the domain of right action. Your question has literally nothing whatsoever to do with right action. It couldn't. It is an ontological question about the origins of everything we could possibly know. "should" means something thinks about it. You're then insinuating something "without" has a mind to consider the question. Otherwise, its nonsensical. I'm not pointing at God here - the guys who run the simulation is more likely IMO anyway hehe.

Hmmm...I still can't grasp what you're getting at. You're making worth-hearing points there, but they have nothing to do with morality or how "should existence be?" is even comprehensible. I understand that, spring-boarding from that question, there's a lot of work that can be done which might eventually result in a bridge between existence and morality - But i am sorry to say none of that is present here (i have read the OP...). I genuinely think I am not missing anything and you're barking up the wrong tree here, despite it being quite interesting generally.

Morality has to do with actions that we should, or should not commit towards other beings. — Philosophim

Hmm, right.. so, then

"Why should anything exist at all?" — Philosophim

Isn't a moral question is it? I think this is the issue i'm seeing - they are clearly different arenas. The latter is actually ontology as best i can tell.

If there is an objective morality, it doesn't just suddenly appear when people enter the picture. There has to be something that builds up to that, like what builds your car for you to drive it. — Philosophim

I think this is the other issue i'm seeing. Prior to the human mind, where/how does this 'build up'? It doesn't seem there is any facility for it.

Here's a researcher who believes morality exists within animals (not sure if its dubious, just an example) — Philosophim

I see where you're going. Hmm. Ok, sentience might be the be-all there rather than human. But, i think it's quite hard to see a singular act by a singular bear as moral. There's no deliberation I don't think. It may have been visually annoyed. But you're right - that line of thinking is taken seriously in the Lit, so I was probably too quick there. Still, prior to sentience, I can't see room.

I apologise, But i cannot understand the relevant of hte remainder.

Hmm - while I see the temptation, I think that's probably not a good piece of reasoning. I also thing: Almost certainly not on this occasion. If it doesn't profess to be a Nazi, or actually espouse any Nazi ideals, I refrain from entering such a claim.

FWIW: I live in a country which is plagued by gangs. One of which is called the Mongeral Mob constituted almost entirely of Maori and Pasifika criminal elements. Their salute.. .is the literal Nazi salute. Seig Heil and all. Hard to think they're Nazis.

Hmm interesting. I had seen a few minutes of this (though, it was clipped into several items). I thought it was preposterous (one of hte claims tacitly supported is that someone with Bi-polar doesn't do what Elon did - therefore it's a Nazi salute... can we not?).

I think part of me is of the view that a Nazi will not deny it. That's part of the identity. I think if you're hiding that you're a Nazi, you can't have much faith in the tenets of Nazism.

what is often assumed to be necessary (determinism), is really just probable, therefore the continuity associated with this assumed necessity is an illusion. The necessity is false. — Metaphysician Undercover

Perhaps I am speaking to my experience/reading but this struck me as a really profound treatment of determinism. Thank you for that. Much thinking to do..

I think there are fascists in the US. Left and right. Is the actual country - the infrastructure and government going to turn fascist? No. There will always be elements, but as an actual driving systemic element? No. Don't think so. That said, I think what a lot of people call fascist is patently not fascist, so ... tough one.

There is. Should there be any existence at all? Its the ultimate should question — Philosophim

But this doesn't enter onto moral ground. Morality has to do with actions towards other sentient beings, right? I don't think this element fits into morality at all - I think asking the question is a farce, in some sense.

I'm an atheist. Be careful that you don't let a suspicion of divinity prevent open thinking. — Philosophim

That's a fair charge - but I don't think I'm quite doing that. I just get a distinct flavour from your reasoning that it must rely on some kind of ... I want to say miracle, but that's not really what i mean - some unmoved mover type of thing amounting to a moral code. I can't see that it's an object or fact to be discovered.. That said, I don't fault belief generally.

That is A context in which morality can be discussed. It is the claim that it is the only context that ultimately fails when reasoned through fully — Philosophim

Its again possible I'm not groking you here - where else does morality exist? There are no morals outside of human minds, so I'm having a hard time understanding something other than mere projection. Could you specify where/in what you speculate morality obtains outside of human experience?

Almost entirely agree with you both, fwiw. Thanks for your responses :)

fo' * surely.

I would humbly disagree. But neither of us are timebandits, i'd think :P :P