The difference between a child who is a sore loser and an adult like Donald Trump or Kari Lake being a sore loser is that children can learn to stop doing it and overcome their emotional immaturity. — GRWelsh

Children grow out of it only because they aren't constantly surrounded by enablers. There are tens of millions of enablers for Trump and Lake. The Trump phenomenon is a consequence of some unfortunate elements in our society.

They're originalists when convenient. I don't think it will be convenient, in this case.

Regardless of who appointed them, the "Conservative" Justices embrace the principle of Originalism. Sedition seems moot; the 14th Amendment refers specifically to " insurrection or rebellion", and neither term is defined in law. So they should ask how these terms were used at the time the 14th Amendment was passed.

The events of 1/6 wouldn't constitute a rebellion, to the 14th Amendment framers, who's standard was based on the Civil War. But insurrection is in play. How was the term used in the 19th Century? The only detailed historical analysis I've seen is contained in the New Mexico decision that barred a County Commissioner from holding office because he participated in 1/6. The decision is here. On page 29, the court identifies how the term was used at the time. Here's an excerpt:

The term "insurrection", as understood by knowledgeable 19th century Americans and Section three's framers, referred to 1) assemblage of persons; 2) action to prevent the execution of one or more federal laws, 3) for a public purpose; through the use of violence, force, or intimidation by numbers....Section three's framers and 19th century Americans did not understand insurrection to require actual violence; intimidation by numbers sufficed.

Perhaps more historical analysis will identify more ambiguity, but if this analysis holds - I don't see how originalist justices can rationalize a decision contrary to their stated principles.

You may be right that the Justices will find some procedural excuse, but they need the ruling to apply to all states - not just the specific issues with the Colorado decision. That seems tougher.

Regardless, the mere fact that no one challenged his candidacy doesn't imply he was actually eligible to be President. Further, the mere fact one is ineligible to be President doesn't automatically mean the name can't be on a ballot, it just means they couldn't serve, if elected.

It was Colorado State Law that made Trump ineligible to be on a primary ballot.

Seditious conspiracy is insurrection and rebellion? Then why didn’t they get charged for insurrection and rebellion? — NOS4A2

Because the language of the law does not use those terms.

No, Debs was convicted of sedition, not seditious conspiracy. Even though it wasn't parallel, let's assume Debs' case made him technically ineligible to serve as President. This just means a state with a law like Colorado's could have omitted him from the ballot (were there any?). The fact that no State did this has no bearing on applying the law in other cases.

Think about Reconstruction. If state courts were to decide what constituted an insurrection, and who was guilty of it, the southern states could say those who fought for the confederacy were not insurrectionists, and thus could hold office. — NOS4A2

That would never have survived SCOTUS review. The Confederate States had left the US, so attacks on them could not be considered insurrection against the US.

“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” In regards to enforcing these provisions It doesn’t mention states or state courts.

The 14th doesn't say Congress has EXCLUSIVE power to pass legislation to enforce the ban. Similarly, Article I Section 8 states: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes..."; clearly that's not an exclusive power.

Trump's ban was a consequence of State law.SCOTUS doesn't have appellate jurisdiction over state law, except in the case where that law is deemed unconstitutional.

Congress has passed no law that applies, so SCOTUS would (in effect) be creating law in order to overturn Colorado's Supreme Court Ruling.

I'm not predicting SCOTUS will uphold the ban (I think it's unlikely); I'm just arguing the litigants had as much right to pursue their preferred outcome as did Trump's supporters (like Texas v Pennsylvania), in the many lawsuits to overturn the 2020 election. Don't you agree?

From a practical standpoint, 6 justices would have been needed to expedite. From a legal standpoint, the reason it's rare to expedite is because the appellate process helps flesh out complex legal issues. Of course, I see nothing complex about this issue. Ruling that a sitting President has blanket immunity would create the opportunity for a de facto dictatorship.

SCOTUS has ruled: they will not expedite. It will have to go through appeal.

Lawmakers establish what the law is. — NOS4A2

Yes, and courts determine what the law means. There is no law that defines what constitutes a rebellion or insurrection. Colorado violated neither the law nor constitution in their interpretation. It's possible SCOTUS will create a definition that has the effect of overturning the Colorado ruling, thus creating new law. If they do, it's game over. Is that what you're hoping for? SCOTUS creating law like this?

Most of us acknowledged Trump's legal rights to challenge the 2020 election in courts, so why can't you support the rights of states to challenge his eligibility using the same justice system?

Great points.

Further, it's not even clear to me what SCOTUS can do here. The Colorado Supreme Court ruling pertained specifically to Colorado law - which SCOTUS has no authority to overrule, unless they find something unconstitutional in the law or in the ruling.

[

Yes, it’s warranted in my opinion, especially given Biden’s lies about his son’s dealings, many of which occurred while Biden was present and in power. I guess he should not have lied. — NOS4A2

The only "lie" allegation I'm aware of is Joe saying he wasn't involved with Hunter's business, despite being put on speakerphone greeting Hunter and companions at business dinners. Am I missing something?

"Given that the stage has been set by previous impeachments, this is par for the course, anyways."

In the case of Trump's impeachments, there was probable cause: good evidence of crimes having been committed by the President. There's no evidence of a crime involving Joe. Hunter's been indicted for crimes that have nothing to do with Joe,. Beyond that, it's clear Hunter engaged in peddling the perception of influence. However, there's no evidence Joe WAS influenced. Even the ludicrous allegation about his firing of Shokin wouldn't be relevant, because it occurred prior to being President.

I don't care that the MAGA House wants to go on a fishing expedition, but this doesn't seem at all parallel to Trump's impeachments.

I wonder if, should this case be taken up by the Supreme Court, whether they ought to wait and see what the outcome of the Jan 6 insurrection case is? You would think a guilty verdict in that case would have a bearing. — Wayfarer

I don't think there's any possibility SCOTUS will rule Trump ineligible, with or without that verdict. He's not charged with insurrection, so he can't be found guilty of that. I anticipate SCOTUS will probably base their decision on the lack of due process establishing he engaged in insurrection.

I had to laugh when I saw this:
RFK Jr. issues stark warning after Colorado court blocks Trump from ballot: 'Country will become ungovernable'
"If Trump is kept out of office through judicial fiat rather than being defeated in a fair election, his supporters will never accept the result. This country will become ungovernable," Kennedy, who initially launched a Democratic primary challenge to President Biden in April before switching to an independent 2024 bid in October, wrote on X.

It's hilarious because Trump's supporters still don't believe the 2020 election was fair and they never accepted the result. What's the difference?

How about "immaterial subjects" in the sense of immaterial ideas abstracted from the objective material world — Gnomon

I'm fine with that.

"Would you classify Consciousness as "immaterial"? Is the denotation "figurative" or "literal"? You tell me"

I'm willing to call it immaterial, in the narrow sense that it doesn't refer to a material object. But I usually refrain from using the term that way, because it's easily misinterpreted as an assent to the existence of immaterial objects. When discussing philosophy of mind, it's important to be clear on this, since dualists assume there to exist an immaterial component that contributes to (or governs) the mental processes. That's why I questioned you, to see if you were defending something like dualism.

The physical doesn't do what we have done. — Patterner

Yes and no.

One the one hand, we are part of the physical world: we were caused by the physical world, and operate within it.

On the other hand, you're right that our abstract reasoning skills, and other mental capacities, have resulted in some awesome things existing that otherwise would not. Thank you for reminding me of this.

The point about number is that it can only be grasped by the mind. A number doesn't exist in the same way that trees and chairs do, but numerical reasoning, and reasoning more generally, are fundamental to the understanding and to science in particular — Wayfarer

The universe operated just fine during the billions of years it existed before there were any minds around to grasp, reason,or understand anything about it. Those physical relations among objects and phenomena were present in them, despite the absence of them being described as formulae.

Well, you will have an issue accounting for the 'unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the natural sciences' (Eugene Wigner). — Wayfarer

Not really. There are mathematical relations between the things that exist. These relations don't exist independently of the things that exhibit them. Simple example: two-ness is a property that groups of 2 have, but groups of 3 of 4 lack. This fact doesn't depend on "2" existing in a 3rd realm.

You're close. I used "reification" to refer to the treatment of an abstraction as a thing, where thing is something that exists (i.e. it is ontic; part of the ontological furniture of the world).

I don't think abstractions are ontic. I reject platonism, which treats ideal forms as ontic. It's still fine to talk about them figuratively as things, but it's unclear to me if you're talking figuratively or literally. Please clarify, because this thread is about the "hard problem" -which is only a problem for materialism. If your solution is to assume the existence of the immaterial, please state this.

And Israel is doing a very comprehensive job at this. Who's more destabilized, ruined, and fearful? Over a million Gazans, most of them children, with inadequate food, water, and shelter, being bombed daily including on routes Israel is telling them are safe, knowing that even white flags can't save them from being designated legitimate targets or the 99% of Israeli citizens suffering no such deprivations? — Baden

I agree with this, but I also hold some sympathy for the position of Israelis (not the government or military). Israelis ought not to live in fear of terrorist attacks by a neighbor. Theirs is a long term concern that is perceived (rightly? wrongly?) to be solvable by eradicating Hamas. Will their military actions accomplish this goal of eradicating Hamas? Maybe, but either way, it's likely to increase resentment and anger by Palestinians toward Israel. That is what breeds reaction, including the deplorable reaction of terrorist action. Hence there's no end in sight to the cycle.

Would you acknowledge that arithmetical proofs and logical relations are real, even if not material? — Wayfarer

I do not acknowledge that these abstractions (or any other) are part of the ontological structure of the world. Abstraction is a mental exercise, and logic is semantics.

the whole course of the causal-temporal chain starts somewhere. It doesn't start at the Big Bang. It doesn't start at your grandfather's birth. It started at the point when there was the set of possibilities that is the YOU now reflecting back, was put into play. Without that set of gametes, whatever object 1, 2, 3.. is would not be YOU, but another set. — schopenhauer1

This is consistent with perdurantism.

It doesn't dictate a mereology (identifying parts), or force one to overmine, overreach, or undervalue the parts. Those analyses can still be applied.

You seemed to hold the the opposite, negating its "perdurance" and essence over time. — schopenhauer1

Perdurance entails an object having "temporal parts". So there's a unique Schopenhauer1 at each point in time of your existence. The individual parts are linked through a causal chain. In gross terms: Schopenhauer1@Monday causes Schopenhauer1@Tuesday which causes Schopenhauer1@Wednesday...

The temporal parts aren't strictly identical to each other because the history builds over time (thus accounting for your changes over time), but collectively- the entire temporal, causal chain precisely defines the "something".

Identity of indiscernibles applies to each object at time t: all the properties the object has at time t are essential to being that object at time t. It also applies to the entire chain: only one individual can possibly correspond to the set of all those temporal parts.

The alternative to perdurance is endurance, and this is what I've criticized, because it leaves vague as to what constitutes personal identity and what is actually persisting over time.

Thanks for the interesting article, but I don't see a direct relation to the notion of individual identity, and it persistence over time. The issues here are not valuation, but how to precisely define what constitutes a persisting identity. I lean toward hyperessentialism and perdurance, and I don't think these conflict with valuations of objects.

Your view seems consistent with "origin essentialism": "biological individuals have their biological origins essentially." This is discussed in this SEP article. I don't disagree that our origins are necessary to being who we are, I just don't think it entails a sufficiently complete concept of identity. IMO, when you start digging into it, the concept of identity gets murky.

Two polar opposite positions highlight this:
1) haeccity (the notion of a "bare identity", entailing any particular identity could have been instantiated in practically anything. Your identity could have been instantiated in the body of your parent or child, or in a goat - and possibly in a rock.
2) hyperessentialism - the notion that 100% of our properties are essential to being who we are.

Both seem defensible concepts, but most aren't willing to accept one of the extreme.

That is not going to be easy when you have the 2nd Amendment and the current gun lobby. — ssu

I don't think my proposal violates the 2nd Amendment, although I agree the NRA would oppose anything that constrains gun ownership.

you simply don't change culture by exams and policy adjustments. For many Americans, the right to own a gun is part of being an American and what the US is all about. — ssu

It would be a political struggle, and require framing the issues in ways that more people could accept it. I'd open with my earlier statement: gun ownership by those who are responsible and emotionally stable aren't the problem.

I expect that nearly 100% of gun owners believe thaty they themselves are responsible and stable. If you're responsible and stable, you have nothing to fear! An example of a "responsibility" law is a law that requires gun owners to prevent access by children. 34 states already have such a law - even Texas(!), where I live. Laws like this are low-hanging fruit - but let's not overlook chipping away at the problem by harvesting it.

Mind is an abstract immaterial process — Gnomon

I compared mental activity to running. The word "running" is an abstraction, but ontologically grounded in a material process. Mental activity may be the same. We describe the mental processes abstractly, but that doesn't preclude it being grounded in material processes.

I don't know where you got "reification", but I refer to the Mind as the Function of the Brain. Both are aspects of heterogeneous (diverse) Reality, but only the brain is a material object.

If you're claiming mental activity entails the existence of immaterial objects I'd regard that as a reification- treating an abstraction as something ontic.

The combination of the DNA code from the set of gametes. The fact that this has slight changes over time or whatnot does not invalidate this. — schopenhauer1

Agreed, but then it's just an historical fact about you.

it can't be any set of gametes, it has to be that set and not another. — schopenhauer1

Sure, but can't we say the same about all the facts in your personal history?

If you went back in time and encountered your younger self, you would consider that youngster a person distinct from yourself. If youngster stubbed his toe, only he would feel immediate pain. I account for the distinction in terms of histories: your history differs from youngster's, even though there's overlap.

"Surely, experience plays a role in identity. Even two rocks from the same molten volcano are roughly similar but are separated by a boundary when they cool. One rock may end up being smooth and one crushed up and jagged. Surely, part of the identity of that rock is the substance that the rock is composed of and arrangement of chemical compounds. When identifying if certain objects came from certain areas in archeology, you can use their unique patina "fingerprints" see if they came from the same location originally" — schopenhauer1

I suggest that you are assuming the rock has an enduring identity, as a premise, and then identify some of the things that would have to be entailed. But the fact is, it is not possible to identify some subset of its properties and history that give that rock a unique identity.

Again, it's necessary, not sufficient because of its role in its unique combination. — schopenhauer1

What exactly are you saying is necessary? Your DNA mutates throughout your life, so if your specific DNA sequence is necessary, you are not the same person your mother gave birth to.

It's also causal and spatially variant, thus accounting for the difference between twins and clones. — schopenhauer1

This reflects a subset of your history.

My position is that 100% of your history is essential to being "you" at a point of time. There is a causal relation between the "yous" of each point of time - and "you" are that cross-temporal causal sequence; you have temporal parts. This is perdurance theory of identity.

one's entire history is essential to being exactly as you are at any time. — Janus

In that case, then "Janus, at this exact day and time", would not exist if indeterminism is true and a different history had occurred.

experience plays a role in identity — schopenhauer1

The Schopenhauer1 of 1999 lacked all the experiences of the Schopenhauer1 of 2023. This is why I previously asked: "Are you the same person (same identity) today, than "you" were yesterday (or 20 years ago)?"

Strict identity does not persist over time, where strict identity fits the principle of identity of indiscernibles. So individual identities have to be defined differently than strict identity. In terms of properties, it would mean identifying which properties are essential (necessary and sufficient) to that identity.

Consider a particular rock. It has a very specific shape and molecular structure. What changes could you make and still consider it the same rock? I don't think there's an objective answer to this. One could define some subset of properties that we identify as existing over some period of time, but there's arbitrariness to any selection of the properties we might choose as "necessary and sufficient".

Are people different? We've noted that monozygotic twins start out with the same genetic makeup, so that set of DNA can't be sufficient. Is it even necessary? No, because our DNA mutates over time, so the DNA you have today is not identical to the DNA "you" had as a zygote or at birth. So you can't even say a specific set of DNA is a necessary condition.

It’s not the guns. There are more guns in the US today than ever before yet crime and murder are the lowest they’ve been since their peak in the 1990s. Clearly there is something deeper at work than the mere existence of firearms. Not only that but even if you remove firearm homicides the US still has a higher homicide rate than most developed countries — Captain Homicide

Is that bolded part true? In recent years, 70% of homicides are by firearms (per FBI stats) Even if your statement is true, the statistics suggest homicides could be reduced with more controls on access to guns.

IMO, gun ownership by those who are responsible and emotionally stable aren't the problem. So the ideal would be to reduce ownership by the irresponsible and unstable. Training and exam (analogous to getting a driver's license) might help, as well as laws that support responsible ownership.

One thing I’ll never understand about the Second Amendment argument is why there is complete deviation from the original wording, which talked of ‘well-regulated militias — Wayfarer

I agree with you in principle, but it is an unfortunate fact of life that the Supreme Court has so ruled (District of Columbia v. Heller, 552 U.S. 1229 [2008]). We can take the long view, like "pro-life" advocates did after Roe, and go a multi-decade quest to change the makeup of the Supreme Court.

In the meantime, we can only seek means to reduce the damage.

Perhaps you still haven't grasped the meaning of the BothAnd Principle. It acknowledges that our objective world is Matter-based, and that our subjective realm is Mind-based — Gnomon

The mind (i.e. mental activity) may be matter-based. Are you denying that possibility? It's not clear, but by stating this dichotomy, it seems that way.

...disjunctions of Science and Philosophy — Gnomon

Physicalist metaphysics joins the two. Earlier, you said:

The only non-physical entities I'm aware of are Mental Phenomena (e.g. ideas), which I place into the philosophical category of Meta-physical. — Gnomon

This is why I refer to "mental activities" rather then "the mind". We should be able to agree that mental activities occur. Mental activities are...activities, like running (actions are not "entities"), so I disagree with imposing an inherent reification.

Are you the same person (same identity) today, than "you" were yesterday (or 20 years ago)?
— Relativist

My answer to that would be yes, even though the body has changed, in fact changed all its cells a few times, those cells still have the same unique genotype, and the basic structure of the body is still usually recognizable all through its changes barring severe disfigurement.

. — Janus

I think you're saying that the particular sperm/ovum combination that produced you is essential to being you. That combination is your historical origin, but isn't your subsequent history also essential to being you? This history would distinguish you from your identical twin, if you had one.

Is all your history essential to being you? If not, then how do you non-arbitrarily draw the line?

Are you the same person (same identity) today, than "you" were yesterday (or 20 years ago)?

It beggars belief that he will still maintain this obvious lie in the face of all that is happening — Wayfarer

He emulates his mentor, who has developed quite a following with this sort of behavior.

What kind of person would do what Giuliani did? You ruined people's lives, and for what? To prove your loyalty to Trump? — GRWelsh

Giuliani's lawyer said this in his closing statement: “remember this is a great man.”

If I were on the jury, this would have pissed me off. No greatness was displayed by this man in his remarks about the election workers, in the lead up to the trial (where he constantly complained he was being treated unfairly, and in his failure to provide required disclosure material), nor during the trial. He did something great once, 22 years ago. That doesn't make him a great man, in perpetuity.

Rudy Giuliani hit with $148M verdict for defaming two Georgia election workers
Anyone feel sorry for Time Magazine's 2001 Person of the Year?

I'm predicting a more sanguine future for Taylor Swift.

A lot will depend upon Trump calming his rhetoric and presenting himself as the more energetic and middle of the road candidate. Stranger things have happened. — jgill

I'm not sure anything stranger actually has ever happened. Regardless, my impression is that his rhetoric is what gets him elected: "owning the libs", catering to the tendencies of his base (including racists and conspiracy theorists), and corralling members of Congress who fear losing office if they incur his wrath.

Do you think Clarence Thomas will agree with you (and piss off his wife)?