I don't understand the recent shift to the right of the political spectrum. — Question

I'm far from convinced that there needs to be an explanation of this. The right I have always believed to be the natural home of the human being. I'm not saying that it's morally or ethically or politically superior in any way. It's simply where human beings are most comfortable irrespective of whether policies make sense or leaders are entirely possessed of their faculties or ethical mores stand up to scrutiny. It's where they inherently feel they belong.So explanations are required only on those rare occasions when there is a popular swing to the left. The question you need to be asking is why the left could not sustain the progress it made, how it lost its converts, and why it could not stop them turning tail and running for home.

Why not?

Whilst I hate to go all logical positivist on you, doesn't that rather depend on what you mean by 'created' and, possibly to a lesser extent, 'consciousness'?

Would it not be simpler to simply contradict the view that a fetus is a human life or indeed, until it is self-sustaining, a life of any kind?

I can't believe you've managed to keep this going this long so let's say you're right and see if it raises no problems. Assuming that you at least agree that the reason we see anything other than direct light sources is because light reflects off it and that light reflects at the angle of incidence, here's what must be happening in your scenario.



Light A reflects off the object and forms an image on the surface of the 'transparent' material. Light B reflects off the image and is seen by the eye. But this raises two paradoxes ...

Light A passes from outside the material to hit the object yet the reflected light A does not pass through the material to outside it but stops at the surface to form an image. How can this be? Either the surface stops light or it does not.

Light A reflects uniformly off the surface of the object to form the image on the surface. Light B reflects uniformly off the image to transmit the image to the eye. So what is the source of the distortion? There should be a perfect image of the object and the eye should see that image perfectly there being no source of interference in either light path.

There being no rational solution to these self-contradictions it cannot be the case that we are seeing an image on the surface of transparent or translucent materials. There being no such paradoxes in the usual explanation ...



... that reflected light travels through the surface of the water but on a diverted path I must suggest that, until a better explanation comes along, it is irrational to favour your own explanation.

True, the hard right was never going to vote for a Democrat, but most folks just reacted without using their heads — Real Gone Cat

Well, it's not just you moving right. — Hanover

Most? Like pretty much every commentator on the Election you seem to have conveniently forgotten that Clinton received nearly 2 million votes more than Trump and that Trump's triumph has almost nothing to do with a significant shift in popular feelings only the bizarre electoral system that turns a 1.3% lead in the polls into a 13.8% deficit in the final result combined with the lowest turnout for decades. Only Quincy Adams has reached the White House with less popular support than Trump. The narrative of an overwhelming victory for Republican thinking simply doesn't make sense. The truth is that a worryingly large proportion of the people of the United States has effectively been disenfranchised by a Republican coup that, far from making the nation 'great again', leaves it more divided than ever.

I think you could reasonably argue that Brexit is actually a step towards greater globalisation as UK seeks as a matter of necessity to improve and create trade links with a much wider community of partners. The EU has to a large extent been isolationist, punishing many American global interests like Google for largely imaginary sins against European interests and imposing stupid regulations on them..

Er .. that was me! Not him!

And there is clearly a qualification there in 'on the way to'. I'm not at all suggesting that you instantly go to zero protection if indeed there even exists such a thing. Even at the height of the Great Plague in London, for example, the infection rate never got above 25% so natural immunity could be said, accounting for those who just got lucky, to be similar to maybe a 60% vaccination rate.

If photons are absorbed, then they aren't seen, nor are they re-emitted as a new set of photons. — Harry Hindu

Nope. If you pour water onto a piece of blotting paper it is absorbed and then after a delay to reach saturation point it is re-emitted. The mechanism is not identical but this is exactly what happens in refraction of light. The photon is momentarily absorbed by a molecule and then re-emitted. It may emerge modified in wavelength or frequency but it is still the same photon. The delay this causes affects the speed of passage of a stream of photons from one surface of a medium to the other. It is an utterly different process from reflection which involves elastic collisions.

You started this journey into madness by claiming that we don't see the stick we see the image of a stick on a screen somehow constructed on the surface of the glass. I asked specifically how the image gets and how we see it. You have totally failed to address either question because ultimately you know that there is no mechanism by which the image can be projected on to this screen and that to see the image would require exactly the same process as to see the stick out of water (and, as explained, in the water!) Your account does nothing except add a totally unnecessary intermediary step which by the principles of Ockham's Razor I hereby utterly reject as I suspect you know it is entirely right to do.

All of which means that my suspicion that you are trolling here has now reached sufficient strength to warrant my total withdrawal from this pointless discourse and advice to others to do likewise. Feed not the troll, dear friends.

The ones that leave the stick get absorbed into the water. Then the water releases new ones. — Metaphysician Undercover

No. No. No. That's ignoring the wave/particle duality of photons to say nothing of the constant speed of light. When one hits a molecule it is absorbed and re-emitted. What goes in comes out the other side intact. So the photons that leave the stick are the exact same ones that hit our retinas and we do see the stick. Not the water, not the air, not some hypothetical or virtual screen, the stick!

Polio has been eliminated — Bitter Crank

Unfortunately its only slightly less dangerous cousin AFM now seems to be on the rise in the US.

Ah, I see. The trouble is that no vaccine is 100% effective in 100% of the vaccinated population, whether this is due to mutation in the disease itself, or problems with individual's immune systems. The higher the percentage of vaccinated people the less likely it is that if the disease is introduced into the community it will be transmitted to those who remain vulnerable (if patient zero is in contact with person A who is in contact with B who is in contact with C and C is at risk, he is protected by A and B's immunity if both are vaccinated, less so if only B is vaccinated, and not at all if neither are vaccinated). At around 95% vaccination rate (obviously that's not exact to the 10th decimal place) there are so many possible trains of transmission that this buffering effect is reduced to virtually zero.

you've made another argument which doesn't make any sense. — dukkha

He hasn't. You have. Please explain the physics by which the image appears on your hypothetical screen. What is its source, how do you see it? Is it actually there or does your brain project it onto this surface? What happens if there are say two sheets of glass between you and the object, or more? What are you seeing then?

Perhaps when you've done making stuff up to cover the cracks you could take a look at this video ...

http://sciencelearn.org.nz/Contexts/Light-and-Sight/Sci-Media/Video/Refraction

... and tell us what's wrong with this simple explanation robust enough to have survived unquestioned for over 400 years.

Could you ask that question in a sentence that I might be able to comprehend? X-)

I'm not sure if there's good evidence of that at the moment with respect to most of the diseases in question. — Terrapin Station

How much do you need? The anti-vaccinationist have provided us with more than enough with record measles outbreaks over the past few years, for example, confirming the prediction that if vaccination rates drop below 95% in a community it's well on the way to being as dangerous as no vaccinations at all. As someone who was nearly killed by measles at the age of 5 (long before the vaccination was available) and whose health is still affected in part by it, it is beyond my ken why anyone would even begin to question the need for universal vaccination.

To me 'my philosophy' is an entirely vacuous phrase.

they are all GOD — Miguel

So not philosophy but theology?

You want to try again? Your first sentence amounts to ...

If conscious experience is caused by your brain, conscious experience is caused by your brain.

And I would have thought it obvious that we have no knowledge of our own brains. It could not be otherwise. I cannot for the life of me see why that should be a cause of angst!

I have squandered my resistance
For a pocket full of mumbles, such are promises
All lies and jests
Still a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest

Says it all, really. Many will have convinced themselves that making America great again is worth the cost of being lied to, others that only a liar is capable of getting the necessary changes enacted. The cognitive dissonance of entrusting a man with the business of the entire nation whom you would probably not do business with personally will have been firmly repressed by the shining goal.

There is value to honesty because if you are caught lying, people will not trust you anymore. — darthbarracuda

Well yesterday pretty much knocked that on the head!

So the real question now is do we call it Califexit or Exitornia, apparently!

t differs in that it already presupposes its subject matter as legitimate — darthbarracuda

Isn't that true of all academic disciplines many of which from an external point of view may be questionable? Psychology, sociology, literature, theoretical physics and, let's face it philosophy, could all be said to be more or less exclusively self-affirming when it comes to legitimacy. The problem is that you seem to be fixating on the subject matter itself as the primary purpose and value of a degree course and ignoring the fact that its principal value is in the development of rational enquiring minds. Theology has long been known as the Queen of Sciences because it encompasses the broadest range of analytical methods applied to the widest range of subject matter. That is why it is studied by at least as many atheists and agnostics as it is by intending priests (trust me on this, it is after all my degree!) To exclude it from academic programmes on any grounds is folly.

And I would also ask: do you really think Trump needs more money? — Erik

Actually yes. He wildly overspent on this campaign. He has failing businesses on his hands and he's going to want a slew of lawsuits to go away so can expect to have to dig deep to settle them on the quiet. I really can't see him wanting to come out of the Presidency as 'poor' as he'll be going into it.

But even if he didn't need it, when has that ever stopped rich men desiring to get richer? Isn't it that apparently needless and reckless adding of billions to personal fortunes that has gotten us, by which I mean pretty much the entire Western world not just USA, into this mess in the first place? I just don't see, for all the rhetoric, this leopard changing his spots.

but that corrupt status quo of unchecked capitalism with its dominance by moneyed interests is thankfully over, at least for the time being — Erik

Ah yes, because Donald Trump has consistently resisted any temptation to protect his wealth by less than scrupulous means like false advertising, tax avoidance, and outsourcing and is in constant search of an ethical economic system! In no way is he going to use this Presidency to line his pockets and reward his rich friends!

Sub-conscious reasoning intruding on consciousness. Short-cut decision making. Wrong, most of the time!

Incompetent teachers setting meaningless homework?

No that's not mean to be added to your list. It's a genuine question. I can't see any other reason for this entirely pointless, arbitrary exercise!

There's some scary looking argumentifying going on here but we can simply dismiss the fundamental premise that infinite series are by definition continuous in both directions. We are are surrounded by what I like to call directional infinities; the natural numbers, the Mandelbrot set etc. These are indisputably infinite but only in one direction. Therefore there is no conceptual dissonance in a Universe that is both temporally infinite and has a temporal beginning.

Then you have to deal with the vast reams of evidence from separated twins that suggest the very opposite.

There would be no one to do any of the grunt work if everyone was adept in critical thinking. — MonfortS26

A strange conclusion. Counterfactual in that I know a plumber with a first class theology degree, Counterintuitive in that much philosophy is dedicated to the better understanding of our 'station' in life.

Wouldn't it be best if philosophy was left to the people who seek it instead of being forced on the general public? — MonfortS26

Best for whom? An educated elite keeping the oiks in their place?

How can something that is unequally distributed and has the potential to be a source of even more suffering in the short or long run be a reason for embracing life or providing new life to other individuals (i.e. reason for procreation), or being in any way a reason for having a positive outlook in regards to the lot of the human experience? — schopenhauer1

So if there are ten apple trees in your orchard and three of them have sour or rotting apples for whatever reason, you don't harvest the other seven? If we do nothing that has the potential to hurt us or where success is not guaranteed we do nothing at all. All good is unevenly distributed. That's the very nature of the Universe. You can elect to have nothing to do with it and die of starvation (cutting your nose off to spite your face) or embrace whatever good there is to be found in it and live.

A strange example since basically we did decide we wanted to get to the moon and people did die achieving it, the only difference being that they were all volunteers.

Running counter to your indignation is the widespread belief that 'greater love hath no man than to lay down his life' etc. and the willingness of people in all walks of life to 'take one for the team'. There does seem to be a very real human belief that community trumps individual to the extent that those not considered to be pulling their weight are generally held in contempt.

But it's not going to stop him! That's the whole point. It might get both our heads kicked in as his resentment transfers itself to me for lecturing him from my ivory tower but it won't change a damn thing in his mindset. If the law won't stop him what makes you think that anything less has a hope in hell?

You've pretty much encapsulated everything that's wrong with the 'tolerance movement' today. As if it is possible to scold people into abandoning their mindset or make them better like some kind of missionary sent from God (or Queen Victoria - it's hard to tell the difference sometimes).

And what if we persuade him to be tolerant, to put up with it? Do you really think that's a long term solution, that there won't be more and more resentment building up as compromises are made day after day and he is forced to deny his true feelings? That's a recipe for powder kegs that are bound to explode with far worse consequences for everybody. That's what causes riots, fascist rallies and ultimately wars.

So no. The last thing I'm going to be doing is going around telling people to play let's pretend. Let's pretend that you're not unhappy, afraid, fuming. Let's pretend that you can just 'snap out of it' like a good little soldier. Let's pretend that avoiding problems and confrontations and misunderstandings and practising our stiff upper lip is a healthy way to live. Because that's what tolerance is!

In the five steps of denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance, tolerance is all of the first four and never the last. Regrettably pretty much every social reform movement that ever existed, none more so than the pc and professionally offended brigades of this age, has that totally arse about face. Which brings us back to your judgey, preachy 'despair' rather neatly. All you see in my original post is far from all that is there but you simply can't (or more likely won't) see further than the contradiction of the current dogma. Oh, the heresy!

A long, long time ago (and here's my despair) a black community leader in Bristol, just after a series of riots there, said that race would cease to be a problem in the UK when everybody finally stopped treating it as a problem. Those of us who understand what he meant have grown tired of waiting for it to happen knowing that counselling (let's face it, it's really attempting to coerce) tolerance is just another way of continuing to treat it as a problem.

Is there some new alternative meaning for the word 'no' of which I've not been made aware?

If you want the answer in those bald terms then, no. Absolutely not. It would do far more harm than good - actually it would do no good at all!

'Made'. He hasn't been communicant since 2008, far too late to to admit to the untenability of his position for my liking. He pretty much admitted to the unsustainability of atheistic religion as far back as 1997.

atheist Christian — anonymous66

An entirely vacuous notion as far as I can see. It supposes that you can take all that God stuff out of Christianity and be left with a moral code and a systematic ethic and you really can't. An atheistic Judaism is completely possible rooted as it is so firmly in an exact (and exacting) set of commandments. Take God out of Christianity and it disappears altogether.

Hmm, is that what I said? I really don't think it was!

hat I’m seeing in the most frontrunning progressive media outlets now (which are basically a glimpse of the future if we continue our social and cultural developments like this) is for example pedophilia. — Linda

I find this very difficult to believe. Have you any actual examples?

No, we should not be tolerant. But that is because there simply is no virtue in tolerance. Putting up with things while you inwardly rage, which is all that tolerance amounts to, is good for nobody least of all yourself. Tolerance is really cognitive dissonance nowhere better illustrated than in those who prize it seeing no obvious problem with making "Tolerance will not be tolerated" their motto!

All very fascinating but totally beside the point. You claimed that Godel's incompleteness theorem

breaks down to you need physical evidence to prove classical logic — wuliheron

.
That is incorrect!