I think maybe people are not understanding the definition of violence? — Ourora Aureis

Do you mean "your" definition? For the vast, vast majority of people violence is harmful force. That seems the definition too. For that reason, its possible similar things are being said in different terms. I would never call the enforcement, through proper channels, of a law, "violence" without some discussion about (for instance) resisting arrest leading to violent police behaviour. So seem to agree, but then claim:

It should be considered the same type of violence that enforces taxes and all other laws. — Ourora Aureis

Like... what the fuck lol. They are not, in any way, equivalent.

I personally dont have a reason for disliking certain genres, I just dont resonate with them. — Ourora Aureis

Which shows that this is not intolerance, its discrimination. Which is totally fine.

Arbitrary Intolerances don't seem to be that inappropriate at all, because they're simply expressions of ones emotions rather than beliefs. — Ourora Aureis

I don't thikn you're adequately hearing the word 'intolerance' which is a visceral, "absolutley not" type of feeling. Not just a preference.

Clearly we believe expressions of sexual preference to be okay, so I fail to see why this should be different on non-sexual grounds. — Ourora Aureis

Well, it is fine. Discriminating, even in bad-taste ways (eg preferring one's own ethnic group) is fine and generally allowed in law and socially. It eventually gets to a point of being arbitrary (like requiring a Dcotor to be of a certain ethnicity for instance) and that's where people don't get on with it, and the law tends to step in. This has changed slightly recently, in a way I disagree with. Some claims of this kind are now allowed in law, but only for certain groups and often to the detriment of others.

wrong to dismiss certain intolerant expressions outright as it presumes they have no requisite reasons. — Ourora Aureis

I agree. Discussion is required. That's how you figure out if something is arbitrary. I am not an absolutist, but I am far more toward absolutism than some of the censorious forms advocated in this thread.

The important factor there being that empirical arguments can be argued for and against with evidence, rather than being entirely normative claims like DasGegenmittel suggested. — Ourora Aureis

This is definitely true, and perhaps people like that simply don't want to have that conversation. Too fucking bad imo. You live in the world. Have the conversation. Grow up.

Why isn't this just the fallacy of denying the antecedent? — Leontiskos

Because it isn't. Not sure what else you could want in response to that. It's my pointing out there you're confusing two separate conclusions which rely on separate reasoning within the example.

Perfect. In your example the state of affairs isn't false (jury is out, as it were, as described) but the belief is clearly false.

The state of affairs, and the belief in it, are not the same thing and are not falsified the same way. Any belief can be falsified without looking at the state of affairs, as I see it. I will simply repeat what you've quoted to round out:

The error being that a failure to support one's belief doesn't entail the state of affairs being false. It does, however, directly entail that your belief in the state of affairs is false. — AmadeusD

I do not understand how, after the above, the argument you're making can be made. You could tell me this conception is wrong and we can talk about that, but your reasoning simply isn't apt anymore. Perhaps the above makes this more explicit..

Ahh I see what you're saying. Well, I think that's hyperbolic to a comic degree, but your core point elucidated here is apt. Thank you.

By way of example, things like brotherly love or love for ethnic peers without any personal relationship. Solidarity being some a priori "love" type claim which rests on anything other than direct personal affection.

I never suggested they weren't. I think its hilarious that those numbers are what they are, yet we're pissing into the wind over Trump deporting X people. Obviously, his tactics are the issue so best to not make shit up about illegal immigrants rights to stay in the USA (others, not you).

An "Us vs Them" mentality, as seen between MAGA and anyone that doesn't agree with them (such as democrats, liberals, the LGBTQ+ community, etc.). — Samael Isn't

You have to do some dilligence here: That is exactly how it looks from the otherside. Most people feel (and people like myself fall in here - who are decidedly left-wing in a box-ticking sense, and have never voted right of center in their lives) feel that there is a quite clear, and inarguable ideological situation in which disagreeing with any aspect of a rather complicated set of policy settings around LGBTQI+ etc... issues is somehow tantamount to being a disgusting bigot, and one must be ostracised, humiliated and made to feel as if they are somehow responsible for others mental health. Which is utter, abject horseshit and rests largely on the 'feelings' of some young, mentally unstable people.

So, I'm not dismissing that your take is hte case for those who take the ideology on hook-line-sinker. But for those who even tacitly disagree, there is some serious consequence mirroring fascist dictates far more readily than any disagreement with right-wing rhetoric seems to cause. That's a bit of a nuance convo though, as you're tyring to have about immigration specifically.

I still can't quite grok what you're saying. The reason is this:

If you say you are against illegal immigrant, you cannot be detained or held responsible for someone who you don't know killing illegal immigrants in another state. — ssu

There is absolutely no argument that could justify that you should be detained or held responsible (on your example, that is. Obviously circumstances can exist to meet that burden).

Being part of an identifiable group doesn't seem to lead to much anyway: Antifa, BLM etc... all carried out serious, violent terroristic actions, but other members were never called up and hte groups were not designated (this being political bias, obviously, but that's not quite relevant to my clarifying what's going on here.

Unrelated:
I see Vance was banned from Bluesky for specifically political reasons. Very Democractic :P

I'm not sure what that could mean.

The practical problem is that males shouldn't be in intimate spaces with females, regardless of their personal beliefs about themselves. I'm no threat to women in bathrooms either, you see.

The incompetence comes from trying to accommodate both of those aspects.

A bunch of two-dimensional semantics papers.

we are losing the whole Western World every time that we fight for Israel — Eros1982

Good lord. Can you perhaps support this a bit?

One problem is that such therapy can't be delayed for 20 or 30 years and still be effective — BC

Real big problem. Emotional dysregulation is something that's extremely hard to overcome. As I understand, having no example of some fundamental behaviour prior to the age of four roughly precludes that from being assimilated.

I, for one, think immigrations laws should be enforced. The rest is window dressing on both sides. Who cares, other than the damage and violence (which both are carrying out). Meh. Swings and roundabouts. We'll be in the next cycle soon enough.

Not in the terms here bandied about. Love seems to be some emergent property of affectionate relationships. That said, there seem forms of 'love' which are not actually to do with affection, and to do with some "solidarity" notion. Hence, far too amorphous.

I really don't know what you're getting at here. I've said its an error in terms. More specifically:

"P is not true," without going all the way to, "P is false." — Leontiskos

These are the same claims (the two in quotes). P is false. The "solve" you want isn't apt, as far as I'm concerned. P is false at "~R".

The error being that a failure to support one's belief doesn't entail the state of affairs being false. It does, however, directly entail that your belief in the state of affairs is false. Hence "Gettierrrrr (with bells and whistles)".

The fragility of people’s psyche and mental health I find baffling. Maybe philosophy needs to step up a bit in the modern world and give a bit of guidance — Malcolm Parry

I think this is a bit of 'curse of knowledge'.
I've outlined elsewhere that my Wife and I, having come up against this ssame confusion, realise that we must be in some "upper" group when it comes to self-reliance, will and problem solving. It seems most people are in the 'lower' group. This creates a picture of hte world which is either:

1. Entirely baffling, and unhelpful; or
2. One in which "I" (whoever is speaking) is somehow "superior" intellectually/emotionally to most people.

Neither seems 'good', but the latter seems 'true'. And in that light, it's not longer baffling to us (and the few friends who we've laid that out to - no one disagrees lol just varying degrees of discomfort (which I concur with))

Or are you going to say that it's just a one off lone nut? Well, political violence is and has to be a "lone nut" thing, because otherwise if there's really a terrorist cell, an organization behind the act of violence, then the Police and the security apparatus will spring to life. — ssu

I can't quite see whether you're trying to say that htis means its not a 'lone nut' or that it's somehow problematic that the security apparatus don't treat lone nuts like terror cells. I don't hold you to either, though.

Suffice to say, lone nuts are lone nuts. The optics aren't relevant. Plenty of left-wing psychos out there.

My intuitive answer would be this is incoherent.

If the belief is 'not true' then the belief is false. Even if there's some way to jigger the state of affairs to not yet be 'false'. It's just an error in terms (would be my answer).

for the expression of certain beliefs — Ourora Aureis

I would want to say no one has advocated for this. Anywhere in the thread.

but certain types of intolerance while others are considered perfectly fine or even good. — Ourora Aureis

Yep. Arbitrary intolerance is not. Intolerance which has a requisite reason can always be argued for. This, for example, would go toward an argument for banning burqas etc... on transparency grounds.

This goes to the previous - no one thinks arbitrary restrictions on speech are a good move (unless, eg, truly racist in which case X group shouldn't speak for arbitrary (but orthogonal) reasons).

We've had a decent exchange. There shouldn't be tension read into anything I've said.

My point was actually more (I think) to do with that this claim doesn't quite fit with your previous posts.

There are many pressures in life and you may live in a conservative part of the world but what social norms are you pressured into? How is this any different to anyone else? — Malcolm Parry

Why would it need to be different? Some people are more resilient to social pressure than others. Probably that note between Michael and yourself speaks to this, but some people are emotionally not able to deal with it. I, personally, think this is why the hard left exists. The fear of 'leaving' when you realise how batshit a lot of those views are is real.

Why? — Jeremy Murray

I have been over this. It's becoming really frustrating(not you personally - but note if anything seems terse, it's not on purpose):

You can massage any action to be pulling you toward virtue. Catholics condemning gays as a way of trying to directed them away from Hell would be virtuous to them. Allowing each individual to simply shoehorn 'virtue' in to their moral system is extremely dangerous. It may be why its so popular - it requires next to no critical thinking and practically no self-accountability. There are those who do it 'properly' as such. But the dangers are so much heavier than the potential benefits.

We aspire to improve — Jeremy Murray

Which is a totally subjective, easily-hijacked concept. I'm am uncomfortable with it, as a moral motivator. "Don't hurt people if you can avoid it" for instance, seems both demonstrably better, and easier to follow. "Aspire" without content is empty anyway, so I guess my gripe is a little premature. Its not even a decently-actionable concept without the "toward virtue" aspect which I've gone over.

I see a kind of moral laziness in relativism, or at least, relativism-by-default. — Jeremy Murray

I understand what you're saying, but there are no arguments which support anything else as, at least, a metaethical way of framing things (well, none i've seen - and the papers objecting to relativism appear some of the worst i've seen get published (Carlo Alvaro for instance). Intuitively, this is my exact position. Intellectually, it is clearly bankrupt (on my view).

This sense of morality being 'thinking the right things' seems dangerously omnipresent at the moment. — Jeremy Murray

Ding ding (on my view). This is absolutely the correct objection to that type of relativism (which isn't relativism, it's just self-involvement; not a serious moral thought to be found in those types).

Again, I'm not formally trained, but aren't these three moral systems the primary moral systems, generally speaking? What system, if any, would you endorse? — Jeremy Murray

Yeah pretty much. There's essentially four equal parts in professional philosophy.. roughly like 25% deontology (or some form of); 25% some form of consequentialism; 25% Virtue Ethics (its slightly higher for VE actually, i'm just simplifying) and the final slice for "alternate". So i"m not exactly in bad company.

I don't really have a 'system'. What I think its 'right' applies to me and only me. I can try to enforce this where i think it is relevant but I am under no illusions that I should be persuasive, or be listened to. I do not expect anyone else to embody my moral thinking which is case-by-case. I do not have 'principles' as I do not think morality is actionable under principles without so much leeway they become pointless 'starting points'. For which we can use intuition anyway.

I think fascism is more popular today than it was in the 1930s. — Athena

HI Athena,

I think it may be time to start reconsidering your clearly either, dishonest, or delusional takes on the world:

When comparing the 1930s to the 2020s in terms of global fascism, the 1930s unequivocally show far more examples of established, state-controlled, globally impactful fascism.

Here's why:

1930s: The Zenith of Fascism's Global Power and Influence

Established Fascist States: This decade saw the rise and consolidation of major fascist regimes with immense global impact:

Italy (Mussolini): Already in power since the 1920s, Mussolini's Italy served as the ideological blueprint for many other fascist movements.

Germany (Hitler/Nazism): Hitler came to power in 1933, rapidly transforming Germany into a totalitarian Nazi state with an aggressive expansionist foreign policy. Nazism shared core fascist characteristics but added extreme racial ideology.


Japan (Militarism/Fascist-like tendencies): While not strictly "fascist" in the European sense, Imperial Japan exhibited many characteristics of fascism, including extreme nationalism, militarism, expansionism, and authoritarian rule.

Spain (Franco): Francisco Franco's Falange, heavily supported by fascist Italy and Nazi Germany, won the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and established a long-lasting authoritarian regime with strong fascist elements.

Widespread Fascist Movements: Beyond these core states, significant fascist or fascist-leaning movements gained traction and posed serious threats to democracy in many other countries, including:

France: Croix de Feu, later the French Social Party, was a large and growing right-wing movement.

Britain: The British Union of Fascists (BUF) led by Oswald Mosley.

Eastern Europe: Various authoritarian and nationalist regimes with fascist sympathies emerged across countries like Hungary, Romania, and Poland.

Latin America: Fascist-inspired movements also appeared in countries like Brazil (Integralism).
Direct Threat to Global Peace: The fascist powers of the 1930s were actively engaged in military aggression and expansion, directly leading to World War II. This included Italy's invasion of Ethiopia (1935), Japan's aggression in China, and Germany's annexation of Austria and Czechoslovakia.

While there are serious concerns about the rise of far-right, authoritarian, and nativist movements in the 2020s, it's crucial to differentiate them from the state-controlled fascism of the 1930s:

Conclusion:

The 1930s clearly demonstrate a greater presence of global fascism in terms of established, state-backed regimes with aggressive expansionist aims and widespread, powerful movements that directly contributed to a world war. The threat was existential and manifested in complete state overhauls in several major powers.

Nah mate, not all that. You're obviously here for hte right reasons - thats why I still tried to respond as best I could :)
I think you'll do well.

I more or less agree with your clarification entirely!

Can someone explain, without reference to banal personal preferences, why my comment which was wholly on topic was removed? Glibness is not against the guidelines.

So, going through this piece by piece - you're leaving me with no much more to say than "So, you made it up".

You quoted yourself, not me. I'm not going to answer for your own utterances (given you didn't clarify anything in my response).

I did not intimate that prison, per se, is just. You are making absolutely insane generalisations based on literally nothing I've said, but something you've assumed.

"policing" in general is for:

protecting wider society from the ills of people who cannot conform to the social contract — AmadeusD

Yes? Yes. That's what I said you mischaracterized. Besides this, it is quite rare that people in prison shouldn't be there. You're trying to have a 'details' conversation about concepts. We're talking concepts. Stay on topic. If you want to talk about specifics (i.e which crimes require imprisonment etc..) then ask those questions/bring up those topics. Don't throw shit at me for responding in kind to your posts.

I did ask you to quote where I said it. It would've easier to just say "Sorry, you're right. You didn't say this. I made an assumption. can you please clarify for me?"

The statement does describe me as well, of course the full statement without taking out the start which reads: — boethius

I said it explains you. If this is your attitude, I am not surprised you would also make insane statements like this:

you yourself agree that your claim is such vapid and empty propaganda that it's no worth responding to. — boethius

This is so childish and underhanded, what did you actually expect as a response? Respect? Your final paragraph just tells me you're not reading much here before responding. That's not my issue. Ask clarifying questions if you have them, or at hte very least, refrain from being a dick.

Did you have a point to make, or are you just gesturing without taking the risk of saying anything substantial — Leontiskos

Both - but our most recent exchange has jaded me on the latter. No hard feelings - just an explanation.

Ah presumably — Leontiskos

.. yes, and with some jest. I should've made that clearer!

The complaint/crux has been that the belief is irrefutable, not that the proposition upon which it bears is unfalsifiable. — Leontiskos

Yeah - i found that discussion helpful and pretty decent as it's something I've not thought too much about. But hte conclusion seems to say something other than the discussion concludes with. I think beliefs (even ones where the state of affairs can be confirmed) can be shown to have shoddy grounding. Gettierrrrrrrrrrr (with some bells and whistles).

Don't accept intolerance. — frank

Mikie is quite intolerant ;)

Socialization. That's the process. This isn't really arguable, unless you hold (against basically every single take that makes sens) that gender is tied to sex, rather than associated with it.

(imo) the entire basis for 'gender dysphoria' is that genders are 'foisted' upon people who, naturally, would not conform to that particular set of behaviours. It is, quite simply, bullshit, that the world does not create expectations and standards for gendered behaviour. These are unavoidable in early life.

If you want to just say that "foisted" is too harsh of a word, that's fine - conditioning is decent enough. Gender is a set of expectations which play out in real time as against the developing behavioural tendencies of all children. We seem to have agreed that this is the case. If gender were not foisted upon people, we literally would not have gender dysphoria. Social ostracization and expectations to conform to 'typical' behaviours is an extremely potent aspect of growing up. If your gender and sex align perfectly, you'll have not noticed this. In reality, many people don't have that (I did not) and suffer the pressure of conform to social norms around gender.

This pattern of unchecked power and resource control consistently leads to systemic oppression throughout history. — RadicalJoe

Usually, outside of the West. So, let's be clear: you're picking out the evils of Western history for a discussion. Not the concepts you're outlining. Nothing wrong with this; but its good to be clear.

That established, I can't quite tell what you're asking about. Are you wanting to ask about the breakdown of standard social structures? This seems too incoherent to give you a specific answer to the poll question. I'll make a comment I think matters though.

These foundations often devolve — RadicalJoe

Often - not always, and so we don't need to think about them collapsing, per se. Much, muhc better answers than turning over the apple cart, returning everyone to a state much worse for themselves and their community in hopes of a better restructure (with the exact same risks we've always had in hand).

This is now beginning to be the same as having a discussion with my seven year old. As you were...

So perhaps it would be better to say that the belief can be shown to have insufficient grounds, rather than be falsified per se. — Leontiskos

Thus, running roughshod over most of the previous comments. Weird...

superfluous — panwei

No, just unfortunate. And I think that is the case. That's why there's (still) a push against democracy. People tend not to vote in their own best interests, so those standards aren't usually reflected in the vote. Superfluous makes no sense here, as nothing is done simply by having standards which you wish to see met in the governing of your society. We (collectively) woyuld have no idea what the standards, or the meeting of them could constitute unless votes at least ostensibly gave us an idea - then the fallout gives us the truth, so to speak.

I cannot grok anything from your second para.

By ordering dishes to complete the authorization, we can clearly express our needs. — panwei

What's being authorised here? Either you mean you're giving permission to be served (that's disanalogous) or you're saying one must author their own desires. Sure, but pointless and unhelpful. If the ordering is supposed to be the same as a vote, then also disanalagous in the extreme.

And these standards are exactly the content of the contract. — panwei

You didn't establish any standard there?

The final section reads like someone in fourth form trying to wrangle their head around why elections often don't result in a positive outcome. So much is true. But that is something of a given, far, far prior to the type of comments i'm mkaing.

The statement was gender is not foisted upon anyone. — Malcolm Parry

But it clearly, without sense of doubt, is. This is probably hte least-arguable aspect of the debate.

If you feel otherwise, that's a shame.

words possess some sort of power or force over and above their medium. — NOS4A2

You are not paying any attention. At this stage, i am more comfortable calling you willfully ignorant.

The words are not entirely relevant. The sound waves constituted by them are. You are not a serious interlocutor if you are stuck on a point that no one has posited.

Instead of picking the lesser of two evils, I get to pick the more effective of two evils. — MrLiminal

Hits hard.

I think the idea that we should taken politicians seriously, morally, is a joke. Absolute joke. It leads to the types of discussions going on in the lounge with several members here clearly losing their rationality on the subject.

I think the concept of Love is far too amorphous to say anything about it. Affection? That works.

You're really saying that all the prisoners of the world not only deserve to be in prison due to their being unable to conform to the social contract — boethius

Please quote where i mentioned prison. Please.

If you really believe all the states in all the world have a perfectly just imprisonment process and protocol, then I will present the evidence to the contrary. — boethius

Please quote where I suggested this (or even mentioned it as a topic???????)

and are a lost soul of little concern to me, simply digging yourself further into the darkness, the prison of your own mind, with every thought and fancy. — boethius

This explains you, I guess.

On it's face, this has always appeared the case to me and it didn't take getting into any professional capacity to note it.

There's a clear difference between 'academic' philosophy and then like "Here at InGen, our philosophy is....".
The former being what we (supposedly) do here, and the latter being what laypeople take to be their general worldview. In the example, its specific to for instance, employment, but is clearly not something gleaned by any kind of attentive consideration (in most cases).

There is definitely an ignorance to the former. Seems to be the reason why most philosophers are considered pointless or superfluous (then again, the examples usually cited for that are absolutely pointless, superfluous philosophers lol).

Yes sir/ma'am/what have you. Though, I have very little problem with pre-emptively dealing with these sorts of civil unrest.

I don't think much of this is true, even on a historical level. So i'll leave it.. some of the more underhanded comments seem pretty self-serving. Specifically the one you quoted, and then dismissed as not worth responding to.
Pretty much the one part you needed to, imo. No matter.

Interesting. So, this sort of takes a 'social constructionist' view but wants to put this in the realm of the communal. I suppose I can get on with that... I haven't run that arguments around in my melon much, but that seems to a decent solution to many of hte disagreements.

If Gender is actually something foisted upon you, but it is a collective bargain, so to speak, you would need to opt ouit of the social contract to deny it. That's somewhat fair imo.