The bulk of his sexist remarks were made a few months ago. He made a few more a few weeks ago.

It's nice to know there won't be any more. I just have to remember to flag them when Baden is here. None of the others would do anything about it.

Me too.

Historically his sexist comments have been over the top, so I doubt that will be an issue.

So the the fact that Duke is your ally doesn't give you pause?

Unfortunately to you, I do care. As I have said, to me the statue represents freedom of speech and tolerance. — BlueBanana

Your ally is David Duke. Are you ok with that?

If we had a king who rules by divine right, we could just take his word. But Americans don't have one of those. We grapple.

If you don't care one way or the other, then why not just let the people who do care deal with it?

I'm offended by it. Confederate flags, monuments to southern participants... it's all the remnants of white supremacist crap. The slogan "The South will rise again" often accompanies it. It's a threat directed at all non-whites and Jews.

How does anybody not know that?

All men were not equal or equally free at that point, so I don't know what you're saying. — Buxtebuddha

It's a goal. A founding principle.

I know. When that was written men only included white landowners, lol. — Buxtebuddha

Are you talking about eligibility to vote? Lincoln was elected in 1860 if that helps you. Might want to read a history of your own country... I'm just sayin'

When this was written men only included white landowners. — Buxtebuddha

I was quoting the Gettysburg Address, Popeye.

I don't feel the need to judge his moral fiber. He's merely on one side of history, and that's all. — Buxtebuddha

That's cool. You shouldn't have a problem with the removal of the statue, then.

So what We the People stand for is tearing down things that we are offended by — Buxtebuddha

No, Americans go overboard celebrating the offensive. That's actually partly why we like Trump, I think.

"...our forefathers founded upon this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

Lee put himself on the wrong side of history.

That isn't with Agustino! :’( — Buxtebuddha

This is an example of how it works, actually. Agustino is sexist. If he had his way, people like me would be disenfranchised and peripheralized. The people who moderate this forum know that, but they don't care. Every time I see his posts, it just sinks in deeper and deeper with me: the moderators of this forum are just as sexist as he is. They have to be. Why else would they leave his nasty comments up?

Same thing with the statue of Lee. The message it sends to both whites and blacks is counter to what We the People have declared we are and will be.

But as I mentioned to you in PM.. if you make it about personality, you're right. Humanity is a bunch of flawed rascals.

As always, it depends on your presuppositions. Chomsky is saying that evidence points to language being an innate capability. That leads him to say there is one fundamental language. So Chomsky would be preoccupied with the way we can work around differences in languages. And (maybe provocatively) it implies that we understand each other because of this shared innate ability. So he owns internalism without qualification.

Isn't that really the more prevalent viewpoint now?

As I read your last post I got this picture of a problem (for lack of a better word) appearing over and over in different guises. It's like a pendulum swinging or oceanic tides... an on-going dance between some form of naturalism and some form of idealism. Volition, qualia, boundlessness involved in a love/hate relationship with mechanical cause and effect.

In the light of that, the Cartesian problem is a perennial problem. It turns out that it can't be merely in the context of Descartes' challenges that we understand his use of mind. But instead we recognize that he used that word for a reason. Grasping that reason isn't so straight forward because attempting to grasp it, one finds oneself enmeshed in holism.

Chomsky insists that all languages have essentially the same features. In a sense, there is only one underlying language. This fundamental language is not a tool that developed for practical reasons. It's an expression of something basic about humanity. And for this reason, we can have some confidence that if we time-traveled to ancient Sumeria and struck up a conversation about mind with the locals, they would fairly easily understand what we mean, though the problems they deal with are very different from our own.

Gravity was originally presented without any clarity about its essence or composition. So how is the concept understood? By understanding the bigger picture it's a part of.

Same thing with mind? What is Descartes' bigger picture? What is the Cartesian problem?

Get more familiar. — Buxtebuddha

Nah... My Civil War phase is long passed.

Um... I guess partly because I'm having difficulty believing you really don't see that a statue to Lee is offensive.

But if you aren't just kidding around... that's helpful to me. I've been seeing a lot of sexism lately. Maybe the people doing it really don't understand why it's offensive and ugly. I guess that's possible.

I'm pretty familiar with the topic. The war was over slavery.

Lee knew exactly what he was doing. If you want to honor him, build a statue for him in your backyard. Try concrete and beer bottles. That would be attractive.

I'm familiar with how he made his decision. He fought for the south and therefore he fought for slavery. This isn't controversial.

In fact, it honors a man who was himself quite honorable, despite his flaws. — Thorongil

Unfortunately his decision to fight for the south defines him. Whatever honor he may be due will have to be offered in private.

My little story was just supposed to help you understand why it's offensive. He fought for slavery. Memorializing him is offensive. It just is.

Probably. Imagine you're black. You're walking around and you stop to notice a statue of Lee. You think, "Oh that's great. Let's celebrate the guy who led the Confederate army." If you don't have any facets of your being that would allow you feel the full depths of how much that sucks... just take my word for it. It sucks.

Yea. Have you ever been to Arlington Cemetery? I think that was his land prior to the war.

Why's it fucked up? We celebrate Tecumseh Sherman with dozens of statues across the country, yet I don't see anyone up in arms about that. If this debate is only about what the statue represents, then we should stop judging the person, because Lee is not the devil. — Buxtebuddha

My beef is with what it represents.

Even stranger when most of the reunified country admired him up until his death, and many didn't view him as a traitor. — Buxtebuddha

He was anti-slavery ironically. But a monument to him is just blatantly fucked up.

A monument to Robert E Lee is just wrong.

We are pluralist creatures and we like it that way. — mcdoodle

(Y) So do you agree that Descartes' dualism was in some ways a response to the scientific revolution? The rise of physicalism brought the concept of mind into sharp relief?

Cool. Thanks!

OK, so you're setting out a schematic for functions of consciousness as opposed to reducing it. That's cool.

Cool. I look forward to it. I need to watch it again. I was doing something else while listening the first time.

Yep. Its from a speech.

Your language is a bit emancipatory. Nothing wrong with that, but just note that your anchor isn't about addressing problems. You are a spokesman for your era.

I think Descartes' concept of mind is an inevitable side effect of physicalism. It provides a point of reference.

But Descartes was rich.

True.

And thought and feeling and planning and imagining aren't actions? Muscula — apokrisis

Thought and feeling can be pretty passive. That was my point: not that consciousness isn't involved in habit, intent, and action, but that those things aren't necessary. Newborn infants are conscious after all.

Involuntary muscles (smooth muscles) are usually maintenance entities.

I thought you had said something about action. My bad.

You think I'm usually hostile?

A person can be conscious without having any particular intentions. Being vs doing. If you agree with that.. then why did you get hostile? Just say: "Yes. I agree."