Well, at least you can be honest about it. — NKBJ

It’s been tough to admit over the years that I haven’t been the best person; but as I get older I don’t seem to care all that much anymore. :razz:

The fact that women have worked against such odds historically and have made it into the canon DESPITE such opposition tells me that women are indeed very much capable of greatness and that the ratio of great women and great men would be much more equal had the playing field been level for the past millennia. — NKBJ

I agree. My cousin and I both got straight A’s in high school. She did better on the ACT and for her intelligence and hard work she got a full ride to Marquette University. I had to settle for half of my tuition being paid at Loyola University Chicago. She’s a brilliant accountant, but she probably could’ve done anything. I’m an immoral lay-about, so she’s a better person than I am.

She’s a colorful character.

My wife is a better, more moral, harder working, less selfish, tougher, thicker skinned person than I; but compared to my ex-wife we agree that I come out on top in these qualities. Neither one of them know jack about philosophy or science, though. Just my anecdotal evidence. Out of the three of us, my ex-wife is most likely to end up behind bars. I am second, and my wife has no chance of being incarcerated. Given what my ex-wife gets away with, it is rather surprising she has never been in the clink. She always gets favorable treatment from the authorities, though.

Very nice post. :up:

LOL Whom are you talking about?

With regard to your claim that all women are cats and all men are dogs, I beg to differ. Noah Te Stroete and I are both men, yet I am a cool cat, and he is a pussy. And his mum is a bitch. — S

:lol: Fucker. My wife and I got a good laugh out of that. :up:

Do you actually read these posts. — Brett

I don’t think he does with much enthusiasm. He doesn’t seem interested in the Socratic dialogue of philosophy. He’s more interested in pontificating than having a discussion. He doesn’t need to engage. He has money.

The first time I attempted suicide was two weeks after first being put on antidepressants. I have been on them for 20 years now, and it would be dangerous to stop now. My brain chemistry is dependent on them (along with the antipsychotics and mood stabilizers).

I love Love love Hamlet. Best play ever. Perhaps I’m an elite? Excuse me while I belch and pass gas.

Laws ensure rights. Without laws who’s to stop someone from stealing your shit or stabbing you? Who protects the environment? Who builds and maintains the infrastructure? Who ensures that drugs are safe? Who inspects the food?

Representative government with the rule of law is the best solution for safety, security, and freedom. We just need these representatives to be more responsive to the people. That’s why money in politics needs to be reformed. In the US, that means overturning Citizens United.

I am saying that there is nothing contradictory between prosperity and culture, and that in the best case scenario the two work together. — Ilya B Shambat

Ancient Athens comes to mind, but they also had slaves so I don’t know where that fits into the picture.

All in all, everyone should be accountable for what they do to the world. — Ilya B Shambat

Agreed but with the caveat that some people or groups have more of an impact on the environment and other externalities.

Perhaps Jesus was speaking of God granting spiritual wishes, not necessarily earthly desires. — matt

That’s an intelligent distinction.

No human phenomenon is God. No human phenomenon is Satan. Call things by their proper names. Anything human can go right or wrong. — Ilya B Shambat

Like you said, one person’s Satan can be another person’s God. However, I agree that this is a wrong-headed way of viewing human phenomena. There are winners and losers in all human institutions. The goal should be to make as few losers as possible and to soften the blow of being one of the losers. That might entail making the winners more accountable to the community of their fellow human beings.

Thoughts?

I found your interpretation of the Genesis story insightful.

it seems obvious that matters that are considered matters of morality and not matters of mere preference or popularity are 'life and death' matters, and such matters are profoundly important to almost all of us because life and death is profoundly important to almost all of us, and that is the "objective" element of commonality that operates in moral thought and feeling, makes it more than a matter of popularity or mere personal preference, and which moral relativism cannot even begin to explain. — Janus

I agree.

That was a VERY good post. It was much better stylistically than your last, and I mostly agreed with it.

Secondly God dose answer prayer, he says one of three things: yes, no, or not yet. — hachit

Good point

As an aside, I remember when Eddie Murphy did white face on SNL years ago. It was hilarious, but the history of blackface is tainted with a diminishing of black people, portraying them in an unfavorable light.

I am always wary when I hear the term “white culture”, for example. Sometimes an appeal to the preservation of “Western civilization” is a dog whistle to the white nationalists/supremacists.

You think so? This is already my second most commented on discussion by far and who knows, maybe it'll be the most commented on given time. I haven't really felt that many people have thought I am defending the alt-right, mostly people are just annoyed that I'm not accepting their leftist narratives. — Judaka

I just meant that you might have won more people over if you believed the alt-right had malevolent tendencies. You don’t deny they do, do you?

This sort of thing only comes up because the PC machine is always searching for something to be offended about, so that they can use it as ammunition in their efforts to virtue signal, to perpetuate outrage culture and thereby force others to comply with their views. — DingoJones

Well said. You’re beginning to win me over to your view.

It's not as if I am ignorant of race or ethnicity, I have just worked through what it means for that person to be that race until I had nothing of note to say. I want to focus on their individual characteristics and make heads or tails of them that way, rather than saying "he's black therefore he probably has to deal with this and that and he's disadvantaged in society and I'm sure he's experienced discrimination before and I could understand if he's angry about the state of the black community and how the government treats black issues". Similarly, when NKBJ has a book to write on me just because I'm white, that's no way to think.

I am quite aware that race is a factor to why certain people are unfairly targeted by police, I am not denying that. I'm not surprised that it happens though, when in America they continually show crime data by categorising offenders by race. Poverty, education levels, family circumstances, mental illnesses and so many factors but you tell everyone over and over that black people are more likely to commit crimes and people start to actively make that connection. Is it surprising that attitudes develop that stereotype young black men as criminals? Is it surprising that leads to disproportionate conviction rates and the like? Not to me.

Police brutality and similar injustices I think, already offend everyone regardless of whether it's your race being targeted or not. I am certainly not okay with police brutality no matter who it happens to, lets work through solutions as we can but honestly, I think the best solution is to stop drawing information and meaning from race, then people will not focus on race and draw unfavourable connections on the basis of race. So long as we continue to go down that road, I think there will always be racism — Judaka

Thoughtful response. I think you would have gotten more traction with this thread if at first you had denounced the darker inclinations of the alt-right.

“In your view morality is about sentiments? If so, I disagree if that’s all there is to it, and I can see how you would not have socialization as the consequent. I believe in rationalism if by “innate knowledge” one means instinct. I believe in empiricism if one believes that the blank slate is a really complex and convoluted matrix that experience “writes on”. Moral sentiments are more than just feelings, though. One has to learn what one is feeling about. One learns through experience that pain is bad. It may also be instinctual or at least partly? Socialization (reports from elders or peers) teaches us that hitting someone causes pain in them, and this is reinforced when someone hits us and we feel pain. We learn through experience (also part of the socialization process) what pain feels like. In this way, we learn that hitting people unprovoked is bad. Now, you might feel that hitting someone unprovoked is satisfying, but socialization (reports from elders and peers that it causes pain) and experience should tell you it is bad. If with this you still feel that hitting someone unprovoked is good, then you are simply mistaken about a moral truth. It has nothing to do with what makes you feel good. It has everything to do with living in a community and not causing harm where possible. One should not harm community members when we depend on the community for survival, wants, and needs. If one harmed a community member unprovoked, then one should expect to be harmed in return. This is neither good for the individual (pain sucks), nor is it good for the community. One harm can lead to two. Two harms can lead to three, etc. Usually, the loved ones feel through empathy the harm done to the harmed party. This can lead to further aggression, and soon large parts of the community are at strife. This is not good for individuals or the community (remember how individuals rely on the community for survival, wants, and needs) because cooperation soon breaks down and it becomes more difficult to survive and satisfy wants and needs. I would then conclude that harming someone unprovoked is morally wrong. “Objectively” wrong. Whatever “objective” really means.”

Ah, let’s see if I can remember. It was something like:

If there were no moral truths, then there would be no need for socialization.

I think I said something like that. I forget now.

How do you go from the instinctive avoidance of pain (which I don't actually agree is a fact as anything that simple, but we can ignore that for now) and the cooperative society fact to "one has a duty to do not harm"? That would need to be supported. — Terrapin Station

I outlined an argument for this several pages ago. I also described how morality works in a cooperative society. It was an exchange with S.

The objective standard is the duty to do no harm (arising from the instinctive avoidance of pain and the finding of oneself in a cooperative society where people depend on others for wants, needs, and survival). Whether an act or non-act is morally right or wrong is determined by this standard and this standard alone. Many acts are approved of or disapproved of according to personal sentiments, but if they don’t relate to the objective standard I just outlined, then they are not moral concerns (which some call moral relativity and others call amorality).

The problems of the race become the problems of the people. — Judaka

But black people are often targeted by police BECAUSE they are black (see the official police policy in Ferguson, Missouri). It isn’t a problem for white people. Black people are targeted because they are perceived to belong to a group, which they indeed do belong to as a descriptive fact of society. Human brains group into categories. That’s evolution. You’re never going to completely do away with that. Also, what does your language including the terms “black people” and “white people” say about your brain?

Let's take as an example the Governor of Virginia. In the 80s he dressed up in blackface for a costume party. Some people demanded he resign. My thoughts - of course he shouldn't resign. My understanding is that he has been a reasonably good governor who treats people with respect. On the other hand, I have no problem with him being embarrassed in public for what he did. I wouldn't even find fault if someone decided not to vote for him in the future for it. — T Clark

I agree. Let the consequences be embarrassment or also being voted out of office. That seems commensurate to the offense. What if all politicians’ worst offenses of their pasts were dug up? Should they all resign? We all have skeletons.

How do you increase aesthetic values in such a cultural environment? — praxis

Good question. I don’t know, and I don’t know if it’s possible in this society where corporate profits are of paramount importance.

Interesting viewpoint. Myself, I tried to commit suicide several times through overdosing on my medications. I just wanted the emotional pain to end, and I actually did value oblivion at the time. Now I’m finally happy that I’m alive, so it is a good thing I wasn’t successful in my attempts.

How are you not suicidal? I can see why you like Schopenhauer. Do you also value oblivion as he did? If so, I wonder why anyone who does value oblivion is still around. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t recommend suicide by an means.

But no one has Superman powers. Bad example, but I get your point.

Okay. You’re unusual then. That is enviable.

So neither of you would take offense if someone said to the people of this forum,”They are child rapists and I have proof!”? What if a large number of people here believed her? What then?

I bet you would take at least some offense at this personal attack.

The solution is increasing the demand while also producing supply of good art that people want to buy.
— Ilya B Shambat

Can you explain how this solution might work? Or why it would be a good thing if it did work. — praxis

Well, for one, it would give a sense of purpose to the millions of the so-called mentally ill in this country who otherwise are undervalued or devalued by society.

I'm more perplexed by why anyone is ever offended. — Terrapin Station

I agree I think. I don’t like it when people make personal attacks, but I don’t know if taking “offense” is the right word. When people just say things as a joke, for example, I don’t understand the outrage that some people feel at the “offensive” language. To me, there is no such thing as offensive language that isn’t also personal.

Your method of asking the right questions was helpful in this dialogue. I wish more people had that skill.

Perhaps your unique psychology and how you’ve come to attribute good feelings to certain things over the course of your life? If for example, you almost drowned on that very beach where your loved one was also murdered (sorry), then you might have a different psychological preference. Am I getting warm?