I would argue that there are 3 things that enforce your actions. Beliefs, Desires (or wants), Mood. None of which are your choice. — chatterbears

Your beliefs, desires, and mood contribute to making you who you are. Your choices are therefore a product of you, and you alone.

It's true that you (your beliefs, desires, moods) were caused, but you weren't intentionally caused, whereas your misdeeds are intentional acts - and it is this intentionality that makes you morally accountable. Your DNA and environment were not product of deliberation, and choice making.

You chose the misdeed from among a set of options, and you knew your choice was morally wrong. This makes you blameworthy. Blaming your mama, no matter how bad her parenting, doesn't get you off the hook, because you own your choices.

You would not have done the misdeed had you been more mindful of the harm it would cause, or taken the consequences more seriously. The memory of your guilt will have changed you. You will have learned from your mistake, and because of this learning you will not repeat it. If you abandon the notion of blameworthiness, you will be rationalizing continuing bad behavior. You are a moral agent because your moral beliefs can influence your actions. You have both the knowledge and freedom you need to do the right thing. Your DNA and past environment had no such freedom, and their respective consequences were not the product of moral deliberation.

If people were used to voting based on policy, Hillary would've won. — Benkei

Trump's promises were appealing to some: a wall paid for by Mexico, a Muslim ban, tax cuts, replacing NAFTA, withdrawing from the Iran deal, and most important of all: judges who would strike down Roe v Wade.

Trump delivered on all those (more or less). So the people who liked those policies then, love Trump more than ever. That's his base (roughly 35% of the electorate), and they aren't going anywhere. I bring this up to remind everyone that just because you and I like Bernie's policies doesn't imply they appeal to everyone. They won't appeal to Trump's base, and it's irrelevant whether they appeal to the (roughly 35% of the electorate) who will vote for any Democrat. The war will be won by battling for that middle. That's true regardless of who the Democratic candidate is.

You believe the DNC is conspiring against Bernie by disseminating the notion that Bernie isn't as electable. What evidence do you have of this? Bernie's electability was an issue during the debates. Candidates like Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Steier, and Bloomberg made an issue of it... — Relativist


All of whom immediately endorsed Biden after securing just about the same amount of delegates as Bernie found himself behind after super tuesday. — creativesoul

Which makes perfect sense if they truly believed a moderate had a better chance than Bernie, and they accepted the fact that they couldn't be the one.

The third party run would result in a Bernie presidency — creativesoul

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Regardless... electability quite simply is an unknown. — creativesoul

Sure- we can't KNOW who is more electable, but we can and should make a best guess.

Bernie destroys Trump in a national debate. He would make him look like the fool that he is. — creativesoul

Trump says stupid things every day. There's so many of them, that a few more won't change anyone's opinion of him. Trump WILL twist the "socialist" label, and lots of people will fall for it. He'll pounce on the high cost of Bernie's programs, just as did his Democratic debate opponents. More voters are likely to be swayed by nonsensical one-liners ("Crooked Hillary", "brain dead Bernie") than by reasoned arguments. It will be painted as "our side" vs "communism" (Trump has already called him that).

He'll do the same thing with Biden, of course. I just don't think the debates will make much difference to voters. No one voted for Biden because of his strong debate performances. They voted for him because he's moderate and they believe he's got the best chance to win (regardless of whether you believe it. It mattered to the ones who believed it).

You're right about the hard data, and I admit I'm giving you my sense of things - my opinion. Nevertheless, I provided the reasoning behind my opinion. You may disagree with my analysis, but you haven't actually shown I'm wrong.

You believe the DNC is conspiring against Bernie by disseminating the notion that Bernie isn't as electable. What evidence do you have of this? Bernie's electability was an issue during the debates. Candidates like Klobuchar, Buttigieg, Steier, and Bloomberg made an issue of it. Trump has signalled a preference to run against Bernie- and it's not because he likes a challenge. So it's not some novel fiction that was invented as a last ditch effort to stop Bernie. It was made an issue early on. I think it's right and I gave my reasons for it. That shows I decided it on my own and that I'm not just parrotting a DNC official as a tactic to hurt Bernie's chances. I'm not anti-Bernie; I'd prefer him over Biden. But that preference doesn't blind me to what I consider the obvious.

Given that I formed my own opinion, and that it seems a reasonable opinion, I'm not all surprised others have drawn the same conclusion. Why can't you accept that possibility? You don't have to agree that Biden is more electable to recognize that it's not an unreasonable opinion. Given that, there's no good reasons to imagine a conspiracy theory. Conspiracies do happen, but most conspiracy theories prove to be fantasy.

I hope Biden selects a younger, healthier, more functional Vice President — Bitter Crank

That's inevitable. The alternative is a corpse, and I don't think they're eligible.

My current prediction for VP: Kamala Harris

The election ought be post-poned due to the corona virus. — creativesoul

It's funny that you mention that, because just this morning, I mentioned to my wife, "I bet Trump postpones the election due to the coronal virus". I was half joking, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if this comes to pass.

They win, and they do so by telling the inconvenient truth to the American people.

In doing so, they will have helped created a well informed electorate. — creativesoul

I admire your optimism.

I don't care to debate who's the best person for the Presidency.


What an odd thing to say given the context...

:brow:

What are you doing here then? — creativesoul

I was discussing electability. Did you overlook this statement? --

Here's why I think Biden has a better chance to beat Trump than does Sanders:... — Relativist

I live in a solid blue state so I usually vote 3rd party (usually Green) because to do otherwise would be to throw my vote away. If the Democrats ever nominate a candidate that at least moves them in the right direction, like Bernie, then I'll vote for them as a reward.

But f I lived in a swing state, I would vote for whoever go the Democratic nomination just to stop the Republican candidate (so long as those nominees continue to stand for the things their parties generally stand for), so I answered "Biden" in this poll. — Pfhorrest

I live in Texas, a heavily red state. But there is at least a small chance that Texas will go for Biden. If Texas goes that way, Trump is likely to lose in a landslide. That would make me very happy, so I will do my little part to help that possibility happen.

I created this poll because Bernie supporters were disputing my claim that Biden had a better chance of getting elected than Bernie. If Bernie supporters vote Trump over Biden, Biden will lose. But if they'll vote for Biden, even begrudgingly, they don't have much basis for disagreeing.

This does not mean Biden would make the better President. Some folks in that thread seemed to take it that way.

Care to address what I actually wrote? I mean, I know your personal straw targets are easy kills, but come on man... — creativesoul

You haven't addressed what I wrote, and I don't care to debate who's the best person for the Presidency. I'm primarily concerned with who's the worst.

You offered a very long list of fucking irrelevency — creativesoul

I agree my list is irrelevant to your choice of whom to vote for.

Bernie runs as an independent and during the national debates clearly makes the case regarding how both parties have caused everyday average Americans harm by virtue of acting upon the best interest of corporations when their interests conflicted with the average everyday American's. — creativesoul

He can certainly do that, and it will guarantee Trump another 4 years.

None of this has anything to do with the issue I was defending: that Biden has a better chance of beating Trump than Sanders. Perhaps Bernie is the best possible person for the Presidency - I haven't disputed that. As I said, I'm just counting votes. The count is relevant to anyone who believes removing Trump is of paramount importance. Since you'd embrace a 3rd party run for Bernie, it sounds like you consider Biden and Trump as equally bad. That's your privilege. I'm not trying to convince you otherwise.

Relativist: If Bernie does that, who will this convince to vote for him?

Anyone and everyone who wants to know what has actually been going on in the American government for the last fifty years that has caused the quality of everyday average American lives to plummet the way that it has. — creativesoul

In other words...Bernie supporters. You really aren't grasping what I'm saying. I'm not judging Bernie, or his desired policies. I'm counting votes. Bernie supporters are already counted, and so far - there haven't been enough of them.

Do you want someone like Trump who has no concern whatsoever beyond his own image and wealth? Do you want someone like Biden who does not have a clue how to fix all the problems facing the people he has convinced to vote for him? Not a clue

I get it: you want people to vote for Bernie. It's too late for me, the Texas primary is over. Do what you can to get that message out to voters in the states that haven't yet had their primaries. If the choice is as obvious as you believe it to be, then it shouldn't be a problem.

So, your argument is that because doing the right things will scare too many Republicans who do not want to do the right things, that we ought not do the right things... — creativesoul

I'm not saying that at all. I'm just counting votes, and you're mistaking that for being anti-Bernie or anti-Bernie ideas, or campaigning for Biden

No matter how much Bernie supporters love his ideas, and no matter how right they may be, they each provide a maximum of 1 vote. You

Well, since you asked...

You left out all of the most important stuff.
...Which candidate actually has a good grasp upon the root problems(actual legislation over the last fifty or so years) that have caused so so many poor Americans to become disillusioned with government altogether?

...Which candidate was on the right side of history in the moment?

...Which candidate acknowledges these problems and is willing to do everything it takes to get them corrected... even if it is a long road?
.
...Which candidate can explain these problems and their solutions to everyday Americans in clear and understandable terms? — creativesoul

You're giving a list of the things Bernie supporters love about Bernie. It seems to me that you think these things are so wonderful, that surely many people will see it as you do and vote for him. I'm not saying they AREN'T wonderful, but what evidence is there that those items will bring in votes that Biden won't get?

We'll see how people vote in my poll. But for now, I'll summarize my position, and the counters that I've seen.

Here's why I think Biden has a better chance to beat Trump than does Sanders:
1) The vast majority of Bernie supporters will vote for Biden, so few of those votes will be lost (I'm testing this with the poll I posted).
2) Biden's moderate policies will attract more anti-Trump independents and Republicans
3) Sanders policies will scare Republicans, and Republican-leaning independents - increasing their turnout (I'm not criticizing the policies, just noting that this backlash should be expected);
4) The enthusiasm of Bernie's base was expected to drive high turnout, but this was didn't happen in the primaries, so there's no reason to think it will occur in the general.
5) This is possible, but not certain: Biden is very popular with black voters, and therefore they may turn out in greater numbers if he's the nominee. Expect Obama to help a lot.

Here's the counters I've received:
1) Biden has dementia, and people will prefer a crazy man to one with dementia
2) Bernie is very popular in Vermont (he's tops in the Senate for popularity among constituents).
3) Most people want medicare for all
4) Bernie's unique qualities (not status quo, real solutions, not half measures) will attract votes.
5) Biden has liabilities that will be exploited by Trump (e.g. dementia; his record).

Let me know if I left anything out.

That's good info. Thanks. I infer that Biden would get at least 75% of Bernie supporters. Possibly more because of the variety of issues with Hillary.

Even so, what matters are the Bernie voters in swing states.

I tried editing it to add 'other' but that didn't seem possible. How about voting 'stay home' and clarify your position in a post?

Cast your vote here.

Ohhhhh boy. I'm just gonna refer you right back to my original post in which I showed that Biden and Bernie are TIED as to who will vote for them over Trump.

I'm sorry, but it really seems like you just don't want to understand what several people (so, phew, it's not just me!) here have been telling you. — Artemis

By "original post" are you referring to the one where you referenced the Newsweek article? It doesn't address the topic of who has a better chance betwee Biden and Bernie. Sure, Biden has vulnerabilities. It's an exaggeration to claim he has dementia, so if want to make a case you should avoid hyperbole. Bernie has liabilities too, and I've seen no acknowledgment. His liabilities are the polarizing nature of his policies. I wonder if you simply don't want to believe that, because of your passion for his policies. Bernie's policies turn more people off than does Biden's. Either of them can get the strong anti-Trump vote, so I calculate a net loss for Bernie.

Here's the ultimate test for Bernie supporters: will you vote for Trump if Biden is the nominee? If no, then what makes you so sure others will do exactly that?

Because voters have been convinced that he can't win and isn't "electable." — Xtrix

I am one of them, and I see good reasons to think it's true, and haven't seen good reasons to think otherwise. Got any?

ust because they sound like they could be true, doesn't mean they are. — Artemis

Of course, but it makes it a reasonable belief. I'm awaiting reasons to believe it false. This isn't one:

He's the most popular senator in America.
https://politicalwire.com/2020/01/16/sanders-is-most-popular-senator/ — Artemis

The metric cited is popularity with his constituents. Sure, he's a shoe-in to win Vermont. This has no bearing on whether he can win Florida or Michigan.

His policies are also the ones that most Americans support. — Artemis

Will you vote for Trump if Biden is the nominee?
My guess is that everyone who supports Medicare-for-All is going to vote Democrat, no matter who is the candidate.

That is a snowballing effect, but at the core of that snowball is that there are good reasons to believe Biden is more electable: as a moderate, he is more likely to bring in independents and never-Trumpers. Polling in swing-states consistently showed he had the bigger edge over Trump. By contrast, Bernie strikes fear in moderates and independents - this can drive up opposition voting.

So make the case for Bernie- show why we should consider him more electable. No need to tell me how much you like him, or why. Explain the broad appeal you think he has. As I said before, the only rationale anyone has given me so far is that he'll bring out the vote, but if that's the case, why wasn't there greater turnout from his key demographic- young voters?

So you consider a weak, obviously mentally impaired, candidate who will be mauled in the debates against Trump to be more electable than one of the best speakers around who could fight him on his own populist ground? — Baden

If Sanders is one of the best speakers around, and that makes a meaningful difference in terms of votes why hasn't Bernie run away with votes in the primaries?

If the appearance of mental impairment puts people off from voting for him, why has Biden done so well in the primaries?

Bernie Sanders needs to clearly enumerate and demarcate the fact that Biden and Trump have both played key roles, in different circumstances mind you - but key roles nonetheless - in causing unacceptable, unnecessary, and quantifiable harm to average everyday Americans. — creativesoul

If Bernie does that, who will this convince to vote for him? Might this not actually repel as many from voting for him? e.g. why would a moderate independent vote for him? It's a crap shoot - there's no way to know how those opposing factors will add up.

You made an eloquent case for voting against both Biden and Trump. Does that also mean that there's no relevant difference between Trump and Biden.? My opinion is that 4 more years of Trump is the worst possible outcome. Consequently, I want the guy most likely to beat him. Full disclosure: I'm skeptical that Bernie would actually make any significant changes. Congress will not vote for Medicare for all and they will not make college free. One could realistically expect some incremental changes, but only if Dems control both houses. Similar incremental change would occur with any Dem as President along with both houses. Consequently, I forsee no big benefit to Bernie over Biden, and that's why I am more concerned with electibility.

It's a whoke The Emperor Has No Clothes thing. The news has been working hard to sell us the theory that Biden is more electible, and that voting for Sanders would mean a Trump win.

Therefore lots of people are voting for Biden in part because they think other people want to vote for Biden. It snowballs from there with each primary. — Artemis

Yes, the theory that Biden is more electable has been pushed, including by me. I'm not lying; I actually believe it and I explained why. The only counters I saw were: a) the difference in electability was small ; b) Sanders inspires more passion, and this would induce more voter turnout.

(a) doesn't actually dispute it. (b) has not ben borne out in the primaries. There is no evidence that Bernie passion resulted in higher turnouts - even among his base.

"He's so crazy it might just work!"
VS
"I feel bad for the tired, weak old guy who can't remember how he started a sentence by the time he gets to the end of it." — Artemis

The people who believe "He's so crazy it might just work!" will vote for Trump in any case. I'm not sure that goes much beyond his base. Some others are looking for an alternative to the crazy one, and will rationalize the alleged mental incapacity of the alternative. For example this Republican.

Another flaw in your theory: why have Democrats (so far) voted for the candidate with dementia rather than the one who has neither dementia nor craziness?

Do you not see that this policing the language doesn't get you anywhere? "Row" is just an abstraction until you get your ducks lined up straight, and then you have realised it. Just an abstraction is what is just in your mind, and I can assure you that my mind is not in your mind but a real thing that writes posts — unenlightened

I'm not policing, I'm giving you my perspective, just as you're giving me yours. I just happen to think abstract objects should not be considered existents in their own right. Ontologically speaking, they're excess baggage.

As I see it when we contemplate a row abstractly, we are engaging in a mental process - thinking about the properties that make something a row. The fact we can do that doesn't (IMO) imply that the abstraction "row" exists independently of the things that are arranged in rows. This seems a simpler ontology. You are certainly free to disagree.

Trump may be insane, but he doesn't have dementia. — Artemis

I'm glad you made that excellent point! Why would anyone vote for a guy with dementia when we can instead give the crazy guy 4 more years?

Biden has an electibilty problem list as long as my arm.

Dementia, for one. — Artemis

I don't see how the perception that he has dementia would affect any votes, since the case can be made for Trump as well. For example, see this.

But each duck exists, and the relation between them exists. We agree about this. But the relation is not another material the way a duck is material - clay or flesh and feather. — unenlightened

I consider materialism to be possibly true, or at least that it's the case to beat. A materialist can't countenance "forms" existing on their own, because they are not material. However, it's perfectly reasonable to note that everything that exists (every particular) has relations and properties. There are no propertyless particulars, and no properties (including relational properties) that exist uninstantiated in a particular. So the relations among the ducks are just as essential to a row of ducks as are the ducks.

And in the case of the topic, here, I think we actually agree that there is no magic immaterial mind, but that mind is the relations and processes of a brain. Get the ducks in a row, and the mind and brain line up in parallel — unenlightened

It is a bit off topic, but it helps to have a common language. We have mental processes, but I think "mind" is just an abstraction. Treating it as a thing may be part of the paradigm problem with understanding mental activities.

This recent Newsweek article suggests that they're actually pretty much tied in that regard (less than a point difference being well within the margin of error): — Artemis

The article also notes that national polls are misleading. The most relevant polls are those of battleground states.

Bernie has two electibility problems:
1) he's dependent on a high turnout from his base. This has not occurred in the primaries, so there's not much reason to think it would occur in the general election.
2) his policies are strongly appealing to some, but strongly repelling to others. Those who are repelled will be motivated to vote against him. This is akin to Hillary- a lot of people simply didn't like her, so they voted against her ( as opposed to voting FOR Trump). That phenomenon isn't clear in the polls that have been conducted.

Most concepts described with words are fundamentally fuzzy. — Daz

Agreed

But some things seem to me to be part of ultimate truth, in the sense that they are not fuzzy. The categories that come to mind are, in no particular order:

1) Physical reality. Meaning, everything that exists or occurs in the physical world. Whether in the past, present, or future. Anywhere in our universe, or even in disjoint universes, in case there are any.

Still fuzzy. Intuitively there's an existential difference between me a Julius Caesar: I exist now, Julius does not. Similar with the future.

2) Consciousness, meaning all experiences that are experienced.

Stiil fuzzy. I experience redness (the quale). Does redness exist?

3) Mathematical truth.

Are all mathematical axioms true?

my question would be ”What is the object of the belief in the above definition of Atheism?” — Pinprick

I think you've muddled up ontology and epistemology. It is true that a statement of what does not exist doesn't say anything much about what does exist. But it's an indirect way of saying something like:

Let E = the set of all existing things.
God is not a member of E. E is the "object of belief".

On the other hand epistemology deals directly with beliefs, and it is meaningful to simply say that atheism entails the belief that the following proposition is false:

God exists

Does a row exist? — unenlightened

Yes, but not as abstract objects. States of affairs (i.e. complex objects) exist that have the properties we associate with rows.

Which line? — unenlightened

The ones that use the term "stuff", because it's vague and ambiguous. I disagree with this:

a row of ducks is more than the ducks, but you haven't come out and said that the more is material, because it sounds odd to say that. — unenlightened

Assume that materialism is true (for the sake of discussion). This implies that every THING that exists is material. A row of ducks is a thing, and therefore it is a material object. It is a type of object distinct from a stack of ducks, or a row of goats. If things that exist are "stuff" than a row of ducks is stuff, and it's not identical to its constituent ducks; the internal relations between them is as much a part of the duck-row as the ducks themselves.

This is physicalim for dummies:
1. There is stuff.
2. Stuff is arranged.
3. Arrangements are not more stuff.
4. The ranges of arrangement include space and time, which are also not stuff. — unenlightened

You're making a mereological error. Do you exist? Are you a thing? After all, you're just a collection of particles arranged a certain way (actually, a loose collection since particles come and go). A complex object is something in addition to its component parts.

You interact with the world as a functional entity. That you exist, and function as you do, is due to the properties and relations of the components that comprise you (i.e. there's no magic involved).

Believing something is impossible, and something really being impossible, are two different things. — Sam26

The issue is entirely epistemological: do reports of OBEs constitute adequate evidence to justify belief that OBEs are actual?

A dualist has the background belief that minds are immaterial. For them, there's no obvious obstacle to accepting that a mind might detach from the body.

A materialist has the background belief that the mind is identical to the brain or at least is a product of brain function so that there is an inextricable link. The mere claim that an OBE has occurred will not undercut this belief.

Can't convince someone who isn't willing to listen, that's for sure. Maybe ponder some more on your belief that "the probability of an advanced, intelligent civilization within a navigable distance, who were motivated to make the long journey, is extremely low". — leo

Willingness to listen isn't the issue. The issue is epistemelogical:
1. Proposition PAL (Probability of Aliens is very Low): per established science, the probability of aliens travelling to earth is vanishingly low (e.g. speed of light is an absolute limit -per general relativity; life-permitting exoplanets are rare; abiogenesis is less than certain on apparent life-permitting planets; evolution of intelligence is a matter of chance - there's no reason to think it inevitable; likelihood of intelligent life having the technology, motivation, resources, and longevity to travel enormous distances is very low).
2. Many people have claimed to have encounted aliens, and those that have been thoroughly investigated have been debunked.
3. The debunked cases show there to be a psychological phenomenon of believing they've contacted aliens. Call it AES (Alien Encounter Syndrome)
4. All testimonial evidence is consistent with (explainable as) AES (i.e. none has been shown to be actual aliens)
5. Therefore there is no epistemic basis to defeat
belief in PAL (see #1).