How does Vegan fit in? Vegan is…scientific?

But as far as I can tell, my assessment of the above would only push people further away from actually hearing what I think. It would cause an emotional frenzy. — Fire Ologist

You might as well, it doesnt look like your going to make any headway with Praxis.

Seems to me that that I’m not hitting the target because I’m using logic, and that doesn’t seem to register. — Fire Ologist

I think your opposition would say the same about you. I guess Im less interested in whose right or wrong and more interested in the two sides actually communicating. Right or wring is the discussion part. The points need to be set up to land first.

I think I’ve made quite a few specific points, and provided support. I am primarily interested in you showing me some point you think I am making and how such point is being framed too broadly.

One example would be great, but it sounds like you have a few. — Fire Ologist

You made a point earlier about Christians claiming to be Christians but aren’t actually Christians. Its just like that. Woke principals include equity (in principal if not in practice), anti racism, anti bigotry etc but also the things you mention. What I mean by your points not landing is you say “woke is so and so” your targets are hearing “anti racism and equity are so and so” and if your “so and so” was a critique then they think you are being critical of anti racism or equity. So its like if some says “christians are murderers” in reference to a abortion clinic bombing and a Christian hears that and dismisses it because of how crazy it is to call the peace loving turn the other cheek folk murderers. The point doesnt land.
Anyway, what I said doesnt stand as Praxis has offered a definition which totally undermines my point above because the definition includes some of the things you are criticizing. ‍♂️
So yes it is both the target and the point. The target (unspecific) of course has a pretty standard dogmatic reaction. Point arent landing.

Why do we need to change the topic? How are you going to make any significant point about woke and how does it refute what I said about woke being contradictory for you to ask the above?? — Fire Ologist

That would be item #9 on the regressive agenda.

9. If someone brings up a problem, pivot to talking about a non-problem.

But that isn’t woke. Woke is liberalism turned into something else. — Fire Ologist

It can be. As I told Praxis you are using a broad brush here. Your points about problematic woke land with me (See my previous post about the regressive left) but as long as you use that broad brush you aren’t landing your points with your actual target. I know, I know…you asked for a definition. The cowardice of wokesters here in not providing one is duly noted.

Well, I think woke has some good principals. Equity is good, racism and sexism are bad, traditional values need to be updated…those all seem good in principle.

Back before woke became a popular it was called “regressive left” by some. Fitting I always thought, given the very obvious but very ignored double standards inherent to some of the extreme left positions.
Lets see how ya”ll compare the “regressive left” with “woke” (not mine, it was created by someone else):

The Regressive Agenda
1. Fuck white people. White people are racists.
2. Fuck America. Blame America and its military for every problem on earth. (mention Iraq
3. Defend the Muslims. Create a false equivalence with Christianity and muddy the waters.
4. Fuck the cops
5. Fuck conservatives and Republicans
6. Save the blacks. Treat black people as if they are helpless infants who lack agency and can be nothing but victims.
7. Disregard linear time. Blur the past with the present so as to demonize modern people for the actions of those from the distant past.
8. Mention that it's not all. Assert that they are saying it's 'all', then tell them it's not all.
Then eject.
9. It someone brings up a problem, pivot to talking about a non-problem.
10. It someone presents a problem to you, mention another problem because two wrongs make a who cares.
11. Virtue signal whenever conceivably possible.
How is the world supposed to know how awesome you are unless you announce it to them repeatedly?
12. Fight against bullies. If there are none, pretend that there are. This will help you process your resentment towards all those mean kids who bullied you. Fight for the Ewoks, not the stormtroopers.

And then Id like to reference Evergreen University and the insanity of the above in operation. The incident was based on woke nonsense learned in the classes there. Woke in principal may not be problematic but there IS a version of it that is problematic and those DO have something to do with certain tenets of woke ideology. It will be very amusing to watch this reference get hand waved away. Telling. I mean it will be telling.

I haven’t even suggest that “there is nothing to what Fire is saying but dishonest Maga talking points.” Why are you being dishonest about this? — praxis

Im not. Apparently mistaken, but not dishonest.

It was my summation of your view not a direct quote. I followed up by offering apologies if that wasnt your view.

If this interests you so much just read the damn thread. :roll: — praxis

Ive been following along.

I've said that his views regarding what woke is are "inaccurate" and "skewed" by MAGA rhetoric. — praxis

Ok. Inaccurate..sure, a broad stroke rather than nuanced. Skewed by Maga rhetoric? A broad stroke. Its possible to express opinions that overlap with Maga without being a maga drone.

That there is nothing to what Fire is saying but dishonest Maga talking points. If Im wrong about that view then apologies.

It was a commentary on your denial not your politics. I was being cheeky, this thread could use some levity.
Maga anti left hate mongering is standard OP. I think the same can be said of the other side as well. (Not the left, the left Maga equivalent.)

Still in denial — praxis

We know you are Praxis, but he’s trying very hard to get you not to be.

You're one of the only posters here, aside from Tom Storm whose online moniker or "screen name" I read aloud with ferocious excitement. Like, it just seems required. Sorry just had to mention that. Probably some latent movie-originated programming that has overtaken my sen — Outlander

Thanks I think?

Anyhow, to your point. The people who favor "wokeness" simply deem it, according to them, as your basic cookie-cutter "speaking truth to power." Something like: "Yeah, I'm not white, and you are, but as it so happens to be, the majority of this geographic or otherwise socio-policital region or sphere is, and so that means, I'm calling you out! (as one who holds power)" Basically saying, it doesn't matter whose in charge or why, all that matters is that you're in charge and I'm not, and per old adage, Heavy hangs the head that wears the crown.

Which is interesting, because, in theory, hypothetically, being "woke" in a place where such is the opposite, say, Africa, talking about unfairness and inequity targeted towards that given majority and power structure (which yes, happens to be Black), should basically be similar. — Outlander

I would say this is an example of woke over reach not necessarily woke itself. That was the point I was getting at by starting with a definition of woke that can at least be a starting point for discussion. So far so the discussion has been mostly in the weeds.

A suggested definition of woke that should satisfy left/woke folk. Then if I may suggest the task then becomes discussing what parts of the spectrum that definition captures and where parts of that spectrum corrupt/change/evolve or flat out avoid that definition. That should apply to both sides I think.

Woke - the introduction of progressive values into traditional spaces that contain opposing values such as inequity, racism or sexism.

Is that a satisfying definition for the left/woke portion of this discussion?

Pretty obvious to me Boethius is the disingenuine (and likely mentally ill imo) one here. How could a question so simple be impossible to answer? Instead, evasive, obtuse and…of a weasel like nature.
So much for outside arbitration.

Could the analogy be to a prohibition era bootlegger who goes around touting the benefits of alcohol, says a certain number of alcohol-related deaths are "worth it" so we can freely drink, and then gets nailed by a drunk driver? — RogueAI

That would be an analogy of the irony of a gun guy getting shot, sure.

In the case of cars, we're willing to accept a certain amount of deaths to drive at speeds that make cars economically viable. Nobody would drive a car at 5mph on the freeway. We sacrifice safety for efficiency.

How is that the same with guns? — RogueAI

It is the same in the “sacrifice” regard. The trade off of lives is analogous, not the reasons why or even what those lives are traded for. We are willing to trade lives, if it is a problem to trade lives (for anything… I think) then cars are a much better place to start than guns numbers wise.
Anyway, obviously I didnt state the analogy clearly enough and I hope that even if you disagree its at least more clear what I meant.

Oh, suppose I say, "There is a genocide in Gaza", then the response -- not from you but due to media -- would be "Israel has a right to defend itself"

But that's not what they're doing. They're committing a genocide.

Yet if they succeed, as the United States did, they'll win. If they eliminate everyone then they'll get to keep the land. We passed on the genocide stick to them.

How do you vote to influence that? — Moliere

I see. Honestly Im not really buying your broader premise here. Im not even a fan of Kirks but Im not going to pretend him and gaza have anything pertinent in common for the sake of justifying violence and assassination.

Again, because cars are essential for many people in this society. Driving is inherently dangerous and we accept the risks because cars are so necessary for so many. That's not analogous to guns.
4m — RogueAI

Cars are not analogous to guns when it comes to necessity, I agree. Thankfully for my point I am not making an analogy about necessity. Im making an analogy about the trade-off for lives, in that sense cars and guns are analogous.

I think my points stand.

Sure.

I'm still disgusted with the means of politics. I've often found that raising this disgust about other such scenarios results in excuses so I'm a bit skeptical.

I want to point to the genocide in Gaza at the moment more than this sensationalist plot in asking the question, though. I am looking for a wider perspective than this one event. — Moliere

Im honestly not sure what you mean here.

Are you sure it wasn't one of them? — RogueAI

Nope, it may well turn out to be them or any number of other motives…but I doubt you’d wanna bet much money on it :wink:
If it turns out to be a jilted lover or something, Ill stand corrected.

Really? You think so? You think if an angel came down and said, "Charlie, I can make this assassin miss you be a hair, or you can be gunned down and leave your wife and kids behind and you can become a martyr for the 2nd amendment. What shall it be?" Charlie would have picked martyr? — RogueAI

No idea how Kirk would react to an angel. That is not the trade off I stated I was referencing your direct quote not your non-sequitur hypothetical scenario. Accepting that you yourself would be included in a statistic is obviously not the same as choosing to die a martyr.

Again, cars have important uses outside of killing things. — RogueAI

Sure, I agree a car is a more useful tool. More necessary to my day to day life certainly. I don’t think the right to have a gun is about variety of use or day to day need though.
My point with that analogy was specifically about accepting some deaths as a trade off for freedom to have a gun. We do the exact same thing with cars, we accept that some people (many more than gun deaths actually) are going to die as a trade off for our speed limits and traffic volume (or as a trade off for the freedom to drive and if you prefer).

Can we not appreciate the irony AND be disgusted by the reaction to a political assassination? One shot from a sniper position. Primary suspicion of motive has to be political. Liberals may not know him but he was big with the right, an important political figure.
But lets talk about how justified it was?

"I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights." — RogueAI

Not reasonable statement? Replace “guns” with “cars”. Still unreasonable?

It just seems so...karmic. — RogueAI

The irony isnt lost on me, but I think Kirk would 100% include his own death as part of that acceptable trade off. Say what you want about Kirk, he did not lack conviction. To the point above, we certainly accept that trade off with driving vehicles dont we? Vehicle accidents kill more than guns, why dont we ban cars? Or make everyone drive 5mph? And thats just for our convenience, there are many who think right to bear arms is much more important.

So you are arguing or asking if the assassination of Charlie Kirk was justified?
Youre a mod?
Thats pretty fucked up.

Are you a 'meaning seeking' type of person such as you have described? Where do you sit on this? — Tom Storm

I am not. Ive spent a lot of time talking to those folks and learning but I don’t seem to be built that way. Where I stand depends on what the claim is but in general Im not moved by appeals to “mystery, “the transcendent”, “the universe” or other such vacuous basis. I guess Im comfortable a) not knowing and b) that there is no greater meaning to it all. Perfectly content with the mere mortal meaning found in friends and family.

I don’t disagree with this. All I mean is that some people are 'turned on' by theism and some are not, just as some are attracted to boys and not girls. I meant preference in that sense, that it is essentially an orientation rather than a reasoned choice. But I think “need” works fine too in a broader sense. And I would include the need 'not to believe' in God along with the 'need to believe'. Both atheism and theism could be understood as sources of affective satisfaction. — Tom Storm

The point of disagreement is “reasoned choice”. Obviously it depends on the specific belief or claims but in general I think a lack of belief can be reasoned choice. As you pointed out atheists can belief in similar non rational things as the average believer and I would agree but also think an atheist can have arrived at atheism by “reasoned choice”. Im much more hesitant to say the same about a theist.

It has sometimes interested me how many atheists actually believe in supernatural claims. It’s only God they don’t accept. Some atheists I’ve known believe in astrology, ghosts, clairvoyance, and other occult phenomena. So I’m not sure what the connection between God, religion, and the occult actually is for some folk. It’s more the Dawkins-style atheists who are galvanised by empiricism who seem to find any supernatural thesis anathema. — Tom Storm

I think it is because these “atheists” are of the meaning seeker type but are just upset with religion and reject it for whatever reason.

Even many theists, especially the apophatics, argue that nothing sensible can really be said about God. It’s all mystery. I just take their move one step further: if that’s the case, why not forget about it and piss the God idea off altogether? — Tom Storm

As we should with all things reduced to “mystery” as a description.

In the end, I think theism (as I’ve often said) is a matter of preference, much like sexual orientation: you can’t help what you’re attracted to. It’s shaped by culture, upbringing, aesthetics, and a person’s preferences for how they construe meaning.
7h — Tom Storm

I disagree here. I would call it need rather than preference. Some people seem to need religion or god or mystery or whatever and some people do not, some people are comfortable with no greater meaning and some are not. Preference implies an array of different paths on a journey but actually its a matter of being on a journey or not in a journey at all.
I think even when a meaning seeker rejects religion they will find another path to it by another name. The ones who aren’t searching for meaning (or at least meaning beyond the physical world), aren’t selecting any preferences because they aren’t looking for anything (beyond the physical world)

s there any way we can demonstrate either way for certain? — Tom Storm

Not beyond Cartesian doubt obviously, but It think we can be reasonably certain….but it sounds like you believe no one has any knowledge about god, from the bible or otherwise. Is that correct, and if so why do you suppose that is?

The fact that so much evil has been done in the name of Christianity has no bearing on whether there's a god or not. — Tom Storm

Unless the god in question could/would/should stop or curb that evil. The fact that there is no intervention, even just a quick “do not kill in my name” from a mountain top or something, suggests no such being exists. No? I mean why wouldn't an all good god say orvdo something?
Or what about prayer? Thats behaviour, can we not judge from the lack of prayer return calls that perhaps there is no such being?

I’m not sure the behaviour of believers has much bearing upon the existence of a god. Can you say more? — Tom Storm

In the sense that a god of certain traits (all good being my example) would not allow that/those traits to be represented by followers. Since the traits are being misrepresented with acts by followers that contradict those traits then we might think that such a god doesnt exist. If it did, surely it would do something about evil being done in it all good name?
I guess its a sort of argument of evil that Im making.

I wouldn’t think so. If you believe in divine command then killing apostates is good. — Tom Storm

Thats why I Mentioned how you define god as part of the basis of my argument above. Divine command justifies all things, not really about morality but authority.

I think that’s right. And given this is a philosophy site I’d expect less focus on this type of god and more on philosophical arguments. — Tom Storm

Are the philosophical arguments much better? Are any of those cartoonish in your view?

Well there ARE bible literalists, so some people do believe a cartoonish thing. Of course it is also low hanging fruit as you say, the easiest attack vector against religion.

Wouldn't the behaviour of believers reflect whether god exists depend on how one is defining god and specifically some of the wisdom or rules he lays down? Like if you claim god is “all good” and believe god wants apostates killed then that contradiction might cast doubt on the gods existence?

I’m an atheist, Paula. But I prefer to have an informed view of religions than the simple cartoon accounts of many atheists. I was brought up in the Baptist tradition but found the notion of a god incoherent from an early age. I was never a believer. — Tom Storm

Im curious what the cartoon account is in your view. Are you seeing any of that in Paulas posts or do you mean in general?

Well, its a good thing you’ve brought this to this forum. Once its in the hands of an obscure philosophy forum there is no end to the help such a highly influential internet place will provide.

God, holy spirit, jesus.
Water, ice, steam.

Same substance, different form.

ife is eternal suffering. — kirillov

One is just as justified to say life is eternal joy as saying life is eternal suffering. I wouldnt say either is accurate though becuase obviously both exist, and generally one experiences both until death. If you choose to focus only on the suffering (necessitated by the view “life is eternal suffering) then thats on you, not life. If your life is eternal suffering then thats your life, not life in general.
So the only thing you are justified claiming is that your life is full of suffering. Maybe it is I dont know, but it really makes very little sense to make the same claim for all lives or on the behalf of everyone.
Regardless, you will not find the answer in philosophies. Perspective is the issue here, starting with acknowledging that even if your life is eternal suffering that doesnt mean life in general is.

Fair enough.