Its not though, its seems nearly impossible to have a rational discussion about Trump, with either side.
“He’s the worst evil!”
“Hes the saviour that delivers us from evil!”

Conversation done. This entire thread is just rephrasing this sentiment, meanwhile neither position is true.

Ya, I didnt mean it as an actual psychological condition, more of a social phenomenon. Its derangement in the layman's sense.

I intended to also include derangement of the type where Trump supporters are blind to his flaws, think he is fighting secret cabals of baby eating rich people, think he is a good christian etc.
Trump Derangement Syndrome, to me, is believing all or most of Trumps lies and/or believing all or most lies told about Trump. Its the suspension of reason because of ones strong feelings about Trump.

Trump Derangement Syndrome. As prevalent on the right as the left…roughly.

It would be real swell if all discussions on this forum were like his one, nice job comrades that was a worthwhile read.
Thanks.

Nope

Can we consolidate some threads into a “beating a dead horse” thread? We can start with this one. :wink:

No more, no less. Humans just can’t be trusted.

Because you can’t be trusted.

In the case of your objection which is - as best I can tell - that animals can be farmed ethically, — Graeme M

You arent paying attention to what you are reading if you think this is the counter argument Isaac is offering.

Neither (a) nor (b) follow from your premise alone. You've drawn no connection at all between liberty and being used as an end. — Isaac

Answer that. This is a counter argument to what you are saying. If you cannot answer it, your position is refuted so address it if you want to be taken seriously.

Nothing about killing something interferes with it's liberty other than by foreshortening its life. If foreshortening life is unethical, then it's hard to see how lengthening it (above average) is also unethical. Farmed animals often live longer than their nearest wild equivalent. — Isaac

This too. Don’t be confuses by the mention of farming, its the bolded portion you need to answer for your position to stand.

Your objections either don't seem to apply, or apply also to humans where some exchange of freedom for welfare is made. — Isaac

Again, address these claims made by Isaac. If you cannot refute this then your argument doesnt stand.
The fact that you only got “animals can be farmed ethically” from reading Isaacs posts is amazing to me, and it should give you pause on your own position that you have so clearly failed to comprehend counterpoints made against it. This is a very good sign that you haven’t considered the issue thoroughly. Also a good indicator you are making an ad hoc argument, rather than in good faith.

Oh. Please explain then.

I dont see the contradiction. Some things are more important to some people than “cultivating optimal agency/well-being via conduct and relationships”. I think you are trying to assert that ethic over all other priorities just as I described above. Its simply not the case for most people, they worry about ethics after a number of other things that come first. These priorities preclude moral judgements.

Well you gave me an extreme scenario, so I answered in that context.
It seems to me your reason for not eating your dog is based on a revulsion of how it would make you feel to do so. Im not sure thats a moral basis of rejection. For the lamb, you have not these feelings, so there is no parallel justification.
Some people do have these feelings but they have no more right to suggest we treat animals the way they do than I have to tell them ignore their feelings and eat lamb cakes.

Oh. Well thanks.
The flaw with most ethical systems is the assumption that being moral is ones highest priority imo, when really for most people its more like 3rd or 4th down the list, hence most people do not consistently follow any system of ethics. Ethics gets hedged out by higher priorities

I dont understand what the flame signifies.

I do have a pet, and I would eat it to survive. I also have kids so they would get the dog burgers first, followed by dad burgers if it meant them surviving. Survival trumps morality for most people, for most things.

I dont see why either position/lifestyle needs to be justified.
If youre asking whether “emoti-intellectual capacity” is a justification for either position I would say no. I do not think that emoti-intellectual capacity is a metric for morality or ethics, either is pain.

Why would a human need to rationalize consuming meat?
Cuz it inflicts pain? So does all kinds of things, so what?

I guess my question here is at the risk of coming up with statements describing current economical reality … what are the best ways of combating modern day cartels/monopolies who don’t have the best interests of the common man as their driving principle… — Deus

Teach common man enough self control and foresight not to empower corporations with their slave-like devotion to materialism. Start with getting people to stop exploiting child slaves by shopping at Walmart cuz its cheaper.
Good luck.

Good point, but the certainty still wouldnt make the choice predetermined. The knowledge of what happens does not effect the outcome of what happens. That was my point.
You would be predicting, with certainty, what the person will choose. Its pre-knowledge of what will happen, not knowledge of what is predetermined. The predetermination is still separate from what youre asking here as I described initially.
You are essentially positing that pre-knowledge and predetermination ( in the free will sense) are the same thing, which I dont think they are. You can have pre-knowledge ( in the context of this thought experiment) of something whether its predetermined or not so you arent actually addressing free will here imo.

Just because you know what someone will choose doesnt make the choice predetermined.
Would you rather have your eyeballs pulled from their sockets with a rusty knife or a pleasant meal?
Nothing magical about predicting you would choose the pleasant meal. Its not predetermined, its just easy to determine just like it would be for your writing god or future seeing person.
I didnt answer the poll because your OP doesnt actually address free will. Its a free will adjacent question but you're actually just asking about foreknowledge of action, the answer to which depends on what ones views on free will already are.

This thread is a waste of time. Consult a dictionary Sushi.
You leave me no choice but to put you in my Bad Box for 1 month. I will not respond in any of your threads until you have served our your sentence.

Passive atheists.

What do I win?

Is it gender that sports uses to group athletes? Or is it sex? — Michael

Right, an important distinction for this discussion thank you.
My understanding is gender is the way you feel about your sex, and sex being the biology of how you were born.
I thought that was the generally understood distinction?

These things were pretty reliably categorised according to biological sex. Now that's not such a good proxy. So why not base the categorisation on what is actually significant - Fast twitch muscle fibre, testosterone during puberty and whatever.... — Banno

Well thats what you are doing when you categorize by sex, as I said all the traits you use would end up being the male ones for many sports. Its a pointless way to do it, and wouldn't protect women or womens sports.
These factors from being born a male cannot be hand-waved away. Males are evolved for fighting, bone structure, thickness and density…science doesnt have a good way to change these things yet.
Ok, Maybe common ground. In most combat sports there is a policy of having 2 years of hormone treatments to counteract the significant advantages being born a male gives. Im not convinced this leads to fairness in the sports (the science isnt clear) but it does reduce the potential of egregious harm to women.
What are your thoughts on that?

I've no idea.

I'm amused at the whole issue. What it actually shows is how arbitrary the classifications used in sports are. It's an intellectually muddled area. — Banno

Ok, what is it that seems disingenuous?

The classifications are not arbitrary though, there is very good reasons, solid reasons, for having a men and womens division in many sports.

The stuff between your legs doesn't make you run faster or kick better. — Banno

I wouldn't imagine so, no. Of course, no ones talking abouts balls but you. Fast twitch muscle fiber, testosterone during puberty and other such factors do however. These things are pretty reliably categorized according to biological sex. Hence it is a useful in categorizing sports.

More Balls. basing a footy game or wrestling match on body weight or some such would do exactly that. — Banno

Sex is the strongest factor in the development of many of the criteria you would use. You’ve mentioned a bunch already.

This looks disingenuous. — Banno

Fascinating. What do you imagine my actual interest to be?

You are missing the point. Sex is only a proxy for innate ability. That's what has caused the problem. Drop sex and find a way to measure innate ability. Then the competition can reward prowess. — Banno

There already are useful ways of measuring innate ability for the purpose of sports, one such way is by sex. Also your way of thinking does nothing to protect women from getting their skulls crushed in a lopsided match up against a trans competitor so it sucks. As I said, that is my primary concern in this topic.

The point being it's not precise at all. Otherwise this thread would not be here. — Banno

Your suggested criteria match exactly the advantages males have in most sports. Apparently they are precise enough.

The premiss that sex has dictates prowess has been shown wanting. — Banno

Depends on the sport of course, but males have a very measurable advantage in most of them but especially combat sports.

Tough shit for sport. their organisation is based on a parochial patriarchic attitude towards people. — Banno

Im not a big sports fan, I dont care which characters win or lose. What I do care about is women getting hurt, and to a lesser degree a fair contest.
Also, anything with history is patriarchic. So what? Do we throw out everything that started before the rise of feminism?

Why gender, as opposed to height or bodyweight or muscle mass index or blood testosterone levels? — Banno

You mean the characteristics that males have over females? Thats precisely the things that separate male and female athletics.

He lives an extra 30 days every time someone says “he’s going to jail” and he doesnt go to jail. Currently clocked at 600 more years.
But seriously, and Im no Trump guy, but how many times have you steadfastly predicted his downfall and been wrong? Am I misremembering? Is it possible you aren’t clearly thinking it through each time?

Jesus. Suicide by mod? I feel like he’s been around a while.

What did they say?

Whats pedantic is focusing on the word “absolute” instead of the clear intention of the OP. Again, everyone else understood what the OP meant and only the pedant choose not to in favour of belabouring the semantics of a single word.
Pedant doesnt mean wrong. We all know the strictest definition of “absolute” is as you say. Its just as obvious thats not how the OP was using the term, even offering examples to further clarify. Do you know why nobody else made the point you did? They weren't being pedantic.
Even after you admitted to understanding what was meant you didnt bother to answer the question. You were only interested in sharing your superior understanding of “absolute” (thanks champ!) with us regardless of any engagement of the OP. Pedantic.

I think they actually have not been able to answer the question: all things mentioned in the answers as absolute things aren’t absolute at all. — Angelo Cannata

n short, it seems that, when you say “absolute”, you actually mean something like “absolute, but not too much”, “absolute, but not too absolute, not absolutely absolute” :smile: . That’s fine, it just needed to be clarified. — Angelo Cannata

Everybody else understood this without clarification. You didnt, or refused to, understand this because you are being pedantic.

How do you figure other people were able to answer the question and have dialogue about it if its like impossible to answer?
Be less pedantic and try reading it again.

I don't really want to live but I sort of have to. — Darkneos

No you dont, you can check out any time you’d like. I think if you wanted to be dead you would be. You don’t really want to check out though do you? What you actually want here is attention, to validate your feelings about how unimpressed you are with life as an option.

Im not one thats going to tell you life is precious or that you have a gift or you have good in your life if you'd just embrace it. I accept you get nothing out of life, that you see nothing special about living and that death/oblivion seems like a better option than living…I’ll concede all that to you right now.
What your wrong about is that any of those feelings have anything to do with how much life sucks or how much better an option death is. Life isnt the problem, you are.
Your thoughts are those of a depressed mind. Just because its a common response you get ( get therapy) doesn't mean its wrong. You might need meds or something else that you are unqualified to dismiss as a cure for your little dilemma.
If youre adamant about depression or other mental illness not being the source of your view here then you’ve already gotten the best advice in the form of a question:

Are you sure youre doing life right?
If you truly have nothing worthwhile to live for, then you are actually more free than most other people. With such little attachment to life you have a freedom, a liberation of action, that means you can fill your life with whatever you want. If you cant exercise that freedom, then thats on you, not life.

Efficiency is ONE of the goals of the market. Again, efficiency is not mutually exclusive with morality (fair exchange of goods.) Its both.
Additionally, the markets development is not the same as the markets goals. You subtly shifted some language there.
You have not shown that markets do not aim for a fair exchange. Who would want a market that didnt aim for fair exchange? Greedy assholes, people who don’t let pesky morality interfere in their money making, yes. Thats a people problem, not a market problem.

Some of those rules overlap with morality, so I do not agree that playing by the rules is the most you can morally claim. The fact there are rules in no way entails that there is no morality.
As to the goal of the system…a free market place aims at a fair (a moral goal) exchange of goods and services. Greedy assholes try to game that system and do their best to make it unfair but this is the fault of greedy assholes not the system itself. After all, if greedy assholes can act immorally in a system then surely good folks can act morally in that same system.

So no, there no moral right for that store to claim payment from me, the claim is economic and legal. — Benkei

This is what I was asking about. Why are you denying morality can be a part of it like economics and legality?
Im not following how your responses answered that.

Also, when we are talking markets are you intending to claim there is no moral aspect to how it works?

Why cant it be economical, legal AND moral. Those are not mutually exclusive so why cant it be all 3? Why are you excluding the moral aspects? It would clearly be morally wrong to steal from the store right?