Thoughts exist, but not in the physical world. With any man-made instrument you can't point at or identify something physical, and know that "hey, now, that there thing is the physical manifestation of thought." — god must be atheist

I would say this is where it breaks down. You start with the conclusion that thoughts do not exist in physically but you havent established that. Just because we dont have man made instruments to measure something doesnt mean it doesnt exist physically. We know thoughts have something to do with chemicals and electrical pulses in the brain, that certain thoughts come from certain areas of the brain and that by damaging the brain in part or whole we can effect or stop thoughts in part or whole. These correlations between the physical brain and thoughts doesnt show that thoughts are physical but its fairly strongly implied I would say and that should at least establish we have no basis to conclude thoughts are not physical.

Extrapolating from this: maybe god exists, too, in the same functional way as thought and consciousness exist. God can be thought of as a temporarily created existence by the mind. — god must be atheist

Yes, a figment of imagination. :wink:
Even if god existed in some intangible way we would still be able to detect gods interactions with the physical in the same way that detect thoughts interacting with the physical.

:up:

I think its more specific than politics, its race. As you observed, even normally astute, academic types lose their shit as soon as someone says “black”. Fact after fact after fact unanswered, they just shift to a different attack vector and completely dismiss how they were just uncontroversially shown to be wrong. Its emotionally driven fantasy.
It would be nice to have a real discussion about any of it but as has been shown quite clearly in this thread you just can’t. You might say something that contradicts the dogmatic narrative and then there is no chance at an honest discussion.

I dont know who you're posting that video for, its not going to register to anyone who disagrees with it as has been clearly demonstrated on every other clear headed, rational offering from you and others on this topic.
The level of blind, dogmatic fantasy on display here is the worst Ive seen on on this forum. Lost cause Sushi, anyone who is thinking rationally on this topic already agrees with the video.

He means the facist covid policies (among others) and the racism of the Biden admin. How do you not know that as often as you interact with him?

Where are the thoughts coming from if not from yourself?
Wouldn't thoughts that come from your sub conscious or from biological processes (a fear response for example) elsewhere in your body still be “you”? In that way aren’t you simply making choices elsewhere than your conscious mind?

Well Banno’s point was that morality is about relations between life, precluding the logic you used there.

I read it. I disagree with that premise. That you cannot change how many people are stupid hasnt been established.
In the OP it states “education” in its current form. Agreed. Lets talk about changing the form? (Which I did state in my post, speaking of not reading things…)

I understand, Im not calling you down about offering this topic. Im not taking the step Clarke is where he jumps to conclusions about your position or character. I would have told him to fuck off too. Unfortunately I think there is some merit to the comparison he made, I just dont think you were suggestion concentration camps. Like I said though, there isnt much distance to get there from what youre suggesting.
If you’ll recall Ive always been someone who understood the thought experiment style topics you’ve introduced.
I find them interesting and useful, so please read my comments with that in mind.
Anyway, what about better education? Wouldn't that be the best way to stop people from being stupid? Not education in the sense of academia but teaching people the merits of living “smart” (still think its an odd set of definitions re smart/stupid but for the sake of discussion) so they understand its better to be constructive over destructive, to lift yourself and others up rather than down or as stepping stones to your own exaltation.

I get the concentration camp reference. What you are suggesting in the OP is pretty dangerous. I know you specifically said not imprisoning but seizing assets is the same kind of thing. Even if you have the best of intentions and under your guidance its somehow successful, the power to seize assets will be there to abuse. It will be abused.
It is a perfectly fair reference, concentration camps, because this kinda thinking is where all that shit starts. Judgement, anyones judgement, is fallible. It doesnt matter how smart one is (even by the bizarre criteria you’ve laid out for intelligent). When you put rules in place that are so vague its only going to lead to someone gaming that rule to abuse it.
Even by your definitions whats smart or stupid is way to nebulous. As sympathetic as I am to the idea that stupidity is destructive and largely unchecked by society I can’t agree that your suggestions would be a good solution. I mean the distance between your suggestion and the worst examples of fascism history offers us is pretty short. Think about it, you are selecting a certain group and denying them rights that others have. What could go wring right?
Can’t we just educate people better, and across a wider/more useful spectrum? (Like teaching critical thinking in elementary school).

Lol, alright. I’ll keep going.

What - about himself? Then they are preferences, and not about morality. — Banno

Why? Is there no moral treatment of oneself? I don't understand the basis for your conclusion. Where are you grounding morality so that it precludes ethical positions and actions concerning only an individual?

.and so utilitarianism fails to amount to a moral position. Fine. — Banno

Im not a utilitarian, I was offering examples of ethical frameworks under which your claim might not apply.
Have you excluded all these other ethical systems on the basis that they do not have relation to others as fundamental? If not, Im curious as to what basis you give primacy to the ones (or is it just one, if so, which one if it has a name) that do have relation to others as fundamental.

Also, “keep going” is what Im doing when Im not asking other people questions. If Im asking, its because I cannot or have chosen not to “keep going”. I think on my own and ask questions when I want to think with/understand someone else. Telling me to go think more is precisely opposite the purpose of a question and answer.
Thats meant as explanatory rather than snide. Since Im asking you about your views you are the best person to get answers from, not me. Again, not intended as snide but Im asking you to talk to me, not prompt me.

You can do better than that.

What about moral intuitions? Not dependant on other agents. The loner could still have them couldn't he?

What about a utilitarian? Is there not a single utilitarian calculation that effects just the loner?

Maybe you have good answers for those, but it only takes one instance amongst all the different ethical philosophies and standards and I that would exclude relation to others as fundamental, right?

What about a moral agent who is entirely alone? Does he cease to be a moral agent until there are others to relate to?

I observe that people don’t stop playing as they get older, they just change games. When people think of play as childish its really just certain kinds of play to which they refer, namely childish play. Then of course there are those that mistake their own sensibilities for maturity and erroneously label certain play as childish.
An example of that last point would be cosplay at a comic convention. This is a often viewed as childish where as something like wearing a jersey or painting your naked torso with team colours at a sports game is not. Clearly an error is being made cuz that shit is the same thing.
Our play simply get more complex, but they do not go away.

Youre almost there…next step: maybe there is no god at all, and religions are bullshit.
Keep peeling back the layers Gregory.

Sure, but your moral theory could simply prioritize one over the other. Something like “the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” So that way maintaining social stability necessarily trumps individual needs/concerns. — Pinprick

Well…ok, but that doesnt do anything to address that the two are in conflict. All you're doing there is picking one over the other.
In this context it is the moral needs of the many outweighing the moral needs of the few. In other words the moral needs of society (what is good for society) outweigh the moral needs of an individual. (What is good for a person). The two will at times conflict, such as in the case of rule of law vs some morally justified vigilante justice.
Even if you have a personal ethic that puts society ahead of the the individual you will still get the conflict. You’ve just shifted where that conflict takes place from a dichotomy between societies good and the individuals good to a dichotomy between two tenets of a personal moral theory, the dichotomy is exactly the same in both cases. The conflict is still there, the choice between societies good or an individuals good must still be made.

Well neither is ideal I suppose but in my defence I did tag a disclaimer of sorts in the end. :wink:

I dont know what you mean by that.

If you are talking about the motivations of conspiracy theory folk for believing what they believe I think its a few different things. Its about having special knowledge, being part of a special group of “insiders” who are special as opposed to numbed out masses fooled by the “elite”. Then there is the delivery…many of these conspiracies have a staggering amount of content, argument and “science” out there for people to research. These two things make for a very seductive influence for people who don’t have a lot going on in their lives.
I don’t want to paint with a broad brush but when it comes to Qanon levels, I think the above is a large factor.

And here is misunderstanding regarding such conspiracies.

lizard people, those proclaimed by David Icke, this isn't really a conspiracy in full meaning, obviously there is no such thing as "lizard people" literary, instead he is figuratively referring to tiny portion of wealthy individuals that have control over wide aspect of economy world wide such as banksters and similar master minds who push new world order agenda, which is a fact that is observable.

A better question is, why does he speak of them as "lizards" rather than referring to them directly? — SpaceDweller

I believe the misunderstanding is yours sir.
Look a little deeper into it. He actually believes its lizard people, aliens. Nothing figurative about it. They secretly control the world and hide various truths and kill people who oppose them and all manner of blatant conspiracies. When you go deep, all the different conspiracy theories start to intertwine once you get to the Qanon people.
The “illuminati” theory your talking about is conspiracy light these days, unfortunately.

And "flat earth" isn't conspiracy either except it's labeled as such, obviously it's clear the earth is not flat plate, but in old times no one was aware that the earth is round and that it's not the center of universe, not even the church.
If the church leaders knew that fact (or didn't believed) then surely wouldn't call N. Copernicus heretic.
Even ancients believed the Earth is the center around which stars are circling.

But that's not unknown, including the answer to, why was flat earth labeled as "conspiracy" (much later) even though it has nothing to do with conspiracy as theory or intentional plotting? — SpaceDweller

Again, you simply cannot be familiar with modern flat earth theories and think it isnt a conspiracy. If you look deeper you will find that they think the earth is flat and there is a global conspiracy of all mainstream science and modern governments to hide that truth from the populace. The moon landing was fake as well as any photos or video of the earth being a globe. Airlines are all in on it, falsifying records of flights and suppressing or removing eye witnesses to the flat earth, the ice wall that surrounds it and the airline routes that would “prove” flat earth. They even have their own “scientific” data and experiments (awful, laughable, non-scientific experiments) that “prove” mainstream science and NASA lie and suppress the truth about flat earth.


The fact that flat earth used to be widely believed is irrelevant. It wasnt a conspiracy theory back then but rather erroneous science. Today, it fits every metric of a conspiracy theory.

You are conflating scientific error and ignorant belief with conspiracy theory. They are not the same thing, even if there is some overlap with terms and references. You conflate modern conspiracy theory with erroneous scientific theory. (And if you want to talk about the churches suppression of a spherical earth theory you still arent talking about a conspiracy theory…there was nothing secretive about it.)
When we refer to flat earth conspiracy we are making a specific reference to people who believe that the earth is flat and that their is a secret global effort to deceive everyone about it and specifically NOT about humanities ignorant past errors. (Though of course modern conspiracy theorists would say the ignorant humans of the past had it right).

That sounds more like error than conspiracy. There are conventions and orthodoxies in all human institutions, including scientific academia. Calling it conspiracy is an unnecessary dilution of the term.

I chose those three to specifically deny that counter argument. They were not legal. They involved lying to the public and to other branches of government to which the perpetrators were supposed to be accountable. In each case, efforts were made to hide these activities from again, other parts of the government to which they were accountable.
Thats enough to call it a conspiracy, and doing otherwise seems like bending a ways over to avoid using the term “conspiracy”. Understandable given the associating theories I offered above, but for myself I will not concede language for the sake of optics.
Also, there are confessions by perpetrators of these sorts of conspiracies detailing how the phrase “conspiracy theory” was purposefully tainted and smeared so its use would have exactly the effect of easy dismissal. Its a language game, and there are detailed expositions about these sorts of tactics.

In what way?

Gulf of Tonkin, Project MK Ultra, Tuskegee Syphillis study…its actually not that hard to find them if you actually look.
Those three in particular involve government cover up and/or secrecy. All are a matter of public record now.

The fact you can reference crazy ones like flat earth or lizard people which are clearly untrue doesn't mean they all aren’t true. We have a word for that kind of logic.
The question of conspiracy theories isnt about the conclusions, its about how they got there. Like all inquiry we should follow evidence and rationality.

Couldn’t, or shouldn’t, things like “social stability” just be incorporated into a person’s ethical theory? I feel like any form of consequentialism would necessarily have to consider things like social stability and the impact whatever moral choice has on it. — Pinprick

Well there will be times when social stability and morality/ethics come into conflict. This isnt mutually exclusive to the point you're making. So the moral consideration of the consequences to society of an act should be included whenever they can be, I would agree with that. When the two are in conflict, they are competing priorities and one must choose.

You put ethical higher meaning than practical, while this sounds ethical and in most of the cases valid, there are cases where an issue isn't only a matter of ethical or not. — SpaceDweller

No, I didnt mean to imply ethical above practical. Indeed, my view is that ethics are merely one of many priorities people have. When these priorities are in conflict, sometimes morality ethics lose out. Thats the main problem I have with many systems of ethics, they assume morality as the highest priority when its much more common for ethics to be 3-4th on the list of priorities for people. For example, many people put family before ethics or sadly most people put money above ethics and compromising ethics for money is so common they scarcely recognize their behaviour as unethical. (Some clever folks even call it “business ethics” to create the illusion that they still operate ethically.)

If you're a judge that is supposed to be just then in such extreme situations it's not only about you and defendant, you also need to care of yourself because there may be millions if not billions of those seeking justice :wink:
If that's sounds unethical to you then don't judge. — SpaceDweller

I think we agree. I would describe that as putting a higher degree of priority on social stability than ethics. This is what judges and lawyers are doing all the time, and why people often refer to lawyers as scum….they arent acting ethically first. They are acting in the interests of a system first, and MAYBE putting ethics second but more likely not at all because they do not recognize a distinction between what they do and ethics, therefore they dont consider ethics because they think they have already.

Not really, consider a person who attempts to pollute a water so that whole society would face serious issues for survival, and this attempt becomes publicly known. (but not committed)

Would you punish such a person in private (punishment) or in public (deterrent)?
What's the purpose of private torture if there is a whole host of potential people who might think doing such evil is actually a good idea? — SpaceDweller

Sorry I wasnt clear. I was stating your stance not offering my own when I said “as punishment, ethical, as deterrent unethical.”. What I meant was I myself do not see a difference between the ethical standing of either is f those. The argument you proceed to make is a practical one, not an ethical one. I concede your point that its more practical, useful to torture publicly rather privately to deter a crime like that but what is the difference in the rightness or wrongness of the tortures themselves in each case?
Or are ethics about whats practical in your view?

Primary purpose of punishment in public is deterrence not punishment, for reasons in example above.

Put it another way, we face COVID pandemic, now somehow a person is found guilty who is responsible for this, such that it was his will to infect the whole world.
Would your just punishment be death penalty, torture in public or torture in private? — SpaceDweller

Ok, gotchya. Thanks for clarifying.

Well if you havent read his interactions with others I can assure you it is a complete waste of time engaging with Bart. Dont take my word for it, review his chats with anyone, you will see how its just going in circles, much like Barts “logic”.

Hey mods, at what point does Barts posting become low quality? I submit he hasn’t engaged or been engaged with a single quality discussion. At best they start with sime merit and quickly degenerate into something indistinguishable from trolling.
How about the boot already?

Definitely yes, torture for the sole purpose of punishment is not only unethical but also uncivilized. — SpaceDweller

As punishment, unethical. As a deterrent, ethical.
They seem to have the same ethical standing to me, how have you made this distinction?

Torture in public, primary goal is to discourage committed crime or evil, punishment comes as "collateral" and is secondary. — SpaceDweller

I can tell youve given this some thought and for that reason I suspect you see that explanation as expansive but Im not sure what you mean. First part is clear but the second part I need expanded. Punishment is collateral and “secondary”…collateral of what, and secondary to what?

Ok I see. I just can’t agree with torture being so broadly applied. The threat of gruesome death as torture? We have to have a higher bar than that.

Im still unclear. By that definition of torture, spanking a child is torture…is that the kind of thing you wish to include?
What kind of inflicted pain is humane? (Since you restrict torture to “inhumane” pain?

No, that's mostly just 'mercans. The civilised world did away with that shit years ago. — Banno

Did they? Where in the “civilized world” did they do away with torture as described in the OP? Even in the US the things you quoted aren’t everywhere, only in parts.

You gotta stop feeding the Bart, it only encourages him. Don’t be his chump.

Interesting, do you think torture as punishment would be unethical, but the other two reasons for torture ethical?
Can you expand on torture as a public deterrent?

I don’t think torture is unethical as it gets, and certainly not because it violates sanctity of life. I do not believe life is sacred, although maybe we have different ideas of what that means.
Also, you are using “torture” far too broadly in my view. You seem to think suffering = torture? Would that be accurate? You even list capital punishment as “torture”. In what way?

Lol, well Ill give you credit for trying but no Tim Wood I don’t do much tar baby grabbing myself. My comments purpose was to try and get you to stop feeding the troll, not an invitation for discussion. If I somehow, in some incomprehensible way, haven’t been clear: I do not believe there is any benefit in engaging with you, only cost. I think you are a dishonest arguer, and a fool.

But like…just stop fucking talking to that guy already. Its painful.

Thrice the fool Bartricks is, once because you are indeed a great fool, twice the fool for engaging with Bartricks and thrice the fool for doing so repeatedly. Godsakes man, you have already done this dance and drawn the same conclusion!
Have you thought about what this implies about you? Hint: it has something to do with the love of ones own voice…

Amen :up:

I go back and forth on it. Its clear that there are significant portions of people who make people like Trump dangerous by listening and accepting what he is saying but its also clear to me that its extremely dangerous to make rules (twitter bans etc) that restrict people in that way because then that tool is there for anyone to pick up and use. I can’t think of too many institutions I trust with that tool.
Who is more dangerous, a guy like Trump or the people who voted for him? Is it better to restrict Trump (easier, for sure) or to educate people?
Also, I was under the impression mores soon he was banned while president?