If you have no ideas on this issue, then stop with the NRA diversions. Not interested. — Mikie

It's funny you're reacting with such hostility to the suggestion that mental health is an important aspect to this problem.

Top-notch tribalism.

Carry on.

But “illegalizing” drugs does work in some cases. I don’t hear about many Quaalude addictions anymore… — Mikie

It works against specific drugs, but because the root causes aren't addressed it's a matter of time before the next one comes along. The problem never truly gets solved.

A flawed example, of course, because it's harder to get fentanyl than it is to buy an assault weapon. — Mikie

It's a flawed example because illegalizing drugs has not led to a decrease in drug use, and it can even be argued it led to the creation of ever more deadly drugs.

(If you meant literally fentanyl, which was only an example, it's still being smuggled in illegally to the US from China through Mexico, so the amount is still quite abundant in the US.) — Mikie

A pretty poor example, then.

Especially, since the "war on drugs" is a great example of how ignoring root causes impedes the solving of the problem.

If fentanyl deaths skyrocketed in country Z, and it turned out country Z was an outlier not in drug use but in the amount of, and ease of access to, fentanyl -- then call me crazy, but my first priority would not be to discuss the prevalence of substance abuse. It would be to restrict the amount of, and ease of access to, fentanyl. — Mikie

How has that approach been working out?

The same people who argue for more guns also argue against medicare-for-all and other programs that would help people, so pretending to care about "mental health" is laughable coming from them. — Mikie

Well, so far you haven't shown a great deal of interest in the iceberg of suffering that underlies these killings either.

Carry on.

You may take the guns away, but the mental health problems will remain.

But I guess that's just a "NRA talking point".

Perhaps if guns were banned and a sharp rise in school stabbings was observed, it would get people's heads out of the sand, hm?

Because mental illness implies a lack of agency, that the shooter doesn’t know what s/he is doing. Most of these acts, the shooter knows damn well what they’re doing. — Wayfarer

Suppose a child is neglected or abused at home, bullied at school and implicitly told by society that this makes them worthless. That child (or young adult) then goes to commit a mass shooting.

No mental illness, but full agency and "just evil"?

To argue it’s because we have a greater rate of mental health issues is factually incorrect. — Mikie

I never argued it was about the rates. Different types of mental illness manifest in different parts of the world, often relating to their culture. Think for example of Japanese "honor culture" and the effect it has had on mental health there.

In China, about a dozen seemingly random attacks on schoolchildren killed 25 people between 2010 and 2012. Most used knives; none used a gun. — Mikie

Sounds like there's something "under the skin" in China, doesn't it?

And as an outsider looking in, it seems like there's something "under the skin" in America too.

It’s certainly important to consider why people do what they do, but it’s also important to consider what enables them to do what they do. — Michael

Guns certainly don't help in making these tragedies less deadly. That's for sure.

But is there more resentment and hatred in Americans than in, say, Brits? — Michael

That's the question, isn't it?

If the answer were no, wouldn't we expect to see similar events carried out with other weapons happening in the UK? People have committed massacres with common household objects like kitchen knives. Stomach churning to think about it, but alas there it is...

The Nashville shooter is 28. "Kids" aren't committing the vast majority of these mass murders. Adults are. Stop making stuff up. — Baden

Had you made the minimal effort to read the discussion you were interjecting yourself into, you would have seen what I had said about it earlier:

I don't live in America, but is the question as to why children (or in this case a young adult) are committing mass murders ever raised? Because I always find that conspicuously absent from any discussion. — Tzeentch

got it right. I was talking primarily about school shootings, but obviously similarly motivated mass murders can be viewed through the mental health lens as well.

The thing with children committing these acts is that it shows how early the cart has gone completely off the rails. When it's an adult we can easily attribute it to their individual "messed up nature", while with kids it's a lot more complicated. They aren't fully responsible for their actions.

Another is that there is something almost unique about US culture and upbringing that people are “naturally” more violent than in more civilised countries. — Michael

An option worth investigating, don't you think?

And I don't think the keyword is "violence" here.

I believe what drives actions like these is an incredible resentment, hatred, a desire for revenge, etc.

Is no one but me interested in what exactly causes such an amount of hate to manifest in relatively young children?

That's not normal where I'm from.

Plenty to say about mental health, but this is not a mental health issue, ... — Mikie

You don't think kids committing mass murders is a mental health issue?

Ok then.

I don't live in America, but is the question as to why children (or in this case a young adult) are committing mass murders ever raised? Because I always find that conspicuously absent from any discussion.

Or is the idea that children want to commit mass murders becoming as commonly accepted as the idea that school shootings "sometimes happen"?

I'm just saying, if your young'uns are massacring each other with assault rifles, your gun legislation is not the only thing that's rotten.

There really is a sickness deep in the soul of America. Actually, no, 'sickness' is the wrong word. I guess the right word is 'evil'. — Wayfarer

Why evil, and not mental sickness?

No one will agree on any form. — schopenhauer1

Why not? Don't people voluntarily agree on ways to coexist all the time?

States just aren't a useful way of reaching such voluntarily agreements, because they're inherently predicated on coercion. This is also why I believe attempts to instrumentalize the state for ethical ends is a flawed endeavor.

What about the people who do not have children, though? Perhaps I should have specified better, but this is the group that in my view is subjected to collective punishment, because they haven't done anything wrong and yet are forced to pay.

I posit that an individual forcing someone into existence, while a personal ethic, is also committing a political action because they are force "endorsing" the child to become part of a larger social contract of the society simultaneously. — schopenhauer1

Definitely agree there.

It's hard to view retributive justice as something ethical. Retributive justice serves in the first place a pratical purpose: if victims is not satisfied with the verdict, they will be more likely to circumvent the justice system and take matters into their own hands. There is also a deterring element to it.

The way you're framing it, it also sounds an awful lot like collective punishment, in which people are punished for crimes (or moral slights) they did not commit.

Can one truly afford to answer such questions after the fact and still consider oneself ethical? — Tzeentch

Not sure what you mean. — schopenhauer1

As you undoubtedly know, states operate on coercion. Given the cost of operating states is the coercion of millions, they can't afford to faff about in an attempt to "figure it out".

It'd be like a doctor experimenting on his patients.

How is something like universal healthcare bad for the populace, necessarily? — schopenhauer1

That's not what I'm arguing.

Modern medicine is probably one of the better things states provide, however there are also ways in which the implementation of modern medicine by states undermines the health of the individual.


Further, if we accept this healthy body/healthy mind minimum, the actions of the state that pertain to those things are not limited to medicine.

States may benefit health through one way, for example universal health care, but undermine it in another, for example economic policy or food legislation.

What it boils down to is that states don't have the will nor capacity to genuinely pursue the healthy bodies and minds of their citizens, which is why I don't believe we should look for states to do such things.

And to circle back to the ethical nature of the OP, if the state can't do a damn good job, there's no way it can justify the costs it imposes on people.

Can one truly afford to answer such questions after the fact and still consider oneself ethical?

Which part? — schopenhauer1

Whether social programs offer a minimum standard of living.

Because I struggle to think of ways states contribute to people's healthy bodies and healthy minds.

The best case could perhaps be made for modern medicine, but honestly I think the state as a whole does about as much to cause problems as it does to solve them.

In a world where violation is inevitable upon being born, a minimum standard of living is the only way to ameliorate the harm caused by this compromise. Social programs offer this minimum standard of living... — schopenhauer1

Is that true, though?

As a basic humanistic starting point, I like to believe every person deserves a healthy mind and a healthy body.

Are states really able to offer these things?

Sure. After I've read enough about Russian history, Russian politics and Russian security policy to be able to condense it into a single platitude "that hasn't changed for a hundred years." :rofl:

It only shows you've not read much about Russian history, Russian politics or Russian security policy. — ssu

Nice joke.

Dunning-Kruger hard at work, I see.

Do you think that's incompatible with imperialism? — jorndoe

In this context, yes.

Catherine the Great's so apt saying that "I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them." puts in a nutshell deeply it is internalized in Russian thinking, that hasn't changed for hundreds of years. — ssu

I've yet to read something more presumptuous in this thread.

This is clearly not an "imperialist war".

The Russians have stated from 2008 onward that they considered Ukraine joining NATO to be an existential threat. They were promptly ignored, and the US only intensified their efforts to incorporate Ukraine.

It takes some special kind of tunnel vision to simply ignore that.

You people have been binging on too much propaganda.

Haven't seen much (by way of conspiracy theories) pointing at this stuff, well, except for Norway perhaps sort of. Not en vogue? — jorndoe

They're "profiteering" of the sanctions, ironically. So there's not much of a mystery.

Norway: export commodities 2022 ↑ 200%, $89.3 billion — jorndoe

Do those exports happen to be natural gas?

If so, there's your conspiracy since they were implicated in the Nord Stream attack and also happen to be one of the world's largest exporters of natural gas.

The US cannot win a war with China and there are too many corporate inconveniences to such a war. — boethius

That might be true. In my view some form of violent conflict in the Pacific is simply inevitable, whether nations want it or not.

Taiwan and Korea are obvious flashpoints, almost guaranteed to boil over if the US is going to make any effort at maintaining its influence, which I'm assuming it will.

Furthermore, if you actually wanted to fight a war with China you'd be super friendly to Russia... — boethius

This was tried by the US, but Russia rejected it, because they feared ending up as de facto US vassals like Europe.

The problem for the US is that nations have caught onto its strategy of keeping Eurasia divided, which it does in order to avoid a peer competitor from rising. (theories by Mackinder, Brzezinski, Wolfowitz, etc.)

Both Russia and China seem to be aware of this, which is why their unlikely alliance has taken form, and why it is unlikely to change while the US remains the world's dominant superpower.

The only power on the Eurasian continent that seems unaware of how the cookie crumbles is Europe.

Why is supplying arms to Ukraine in a drip feed manner without any chance of victory a reasonable policy even assuming the "West good / Russia bad" suppositions? — boethius

My view has been that the outcome of the Ukraine war is not all that relevant to the United States, and that their intent has been to drive a wedge between Europe and Russia, and to remilitarize Europe.

Renewed great power conflict is coming, and I think the United States feared Europe would not pick a side if war would break out between China (likely joined by Russia) and the US in the Pacific.


Firstly, because the Europeans didn't have any militaries to speak of. Secondly, because the Europeans and Russians were mostly getting along. Thirdly, because European loyalty towards the United States has been diminishing since the end of the Cold War.


By pursuing a military alliance with Ukraine, a major Russian reaction was guaranteed. The Russians promised us as much over the course of some fifteen years.


The drip feed strategy is cheap and non-committal.

- Europe is pressured into supporting Ukraine, which essentially puts it at war with Russia.

- By providing arms to Ukraine, Europe further hollows out their already token military forces. That will either force them to revamp their militaries, or to be under permanent military threat from Russia.

- This is further amplified by the fact that Russia is forced to mobilize and expand and develop its military.


The reason I believe this theory is quite plausible, is because:
1. The US knew Russia would react this way to their efforts to incorporate Ukraine into the western security structure.
2. The US never seemed truly committed to defending Ukraine militarily, even though it was clear from the onset that Ukraine would lose without US/NATO military intervention.


In other words, they knowingly provoked a conflict in which they were not committed to victory. In my view that can only mean that victory was never the objective.

Heaven forbid folks get to hear words they don't like on a philosophy forum. :roll:

So the economy is between a rock and a hard place: if the fed does nothing, inflation continues to climb, if they act, it could potentially cause a string of bank failures the government would probably have to deal with. — frank

In my opinion, there are two problems at work.

1. The Fed, or the ECB, or any governmental/politicized institution for that matter, cannot handle the responsibility of this amount of control over the quantity of money.

2. Governments bearing the risk of bank failures turn people apathetic to their banks' behavior.

People should bear the risk if their bank fails. That's the only way to encourage them to act in more financially responsible ways.

The fact that people don't care is why banks get away with irresponsible business practices. People don't care because "the government will deal with it". What they miss is the only way the government can "deal with it" is by printing money, which causes inflation, which is essentially a hidden tax paid for, predominantly, by Joe Average.

No more bail outs and no more money printing.

Economies (the flow of resources, goods and services) predates capital - monetary systems. Bartering is another economic system as is simply sharing amongst a small tribal community. — Benj96

I don't think the eco cutlery from your example would have fared any better under a system of barter.

What happens in your example is that a previously useless waste product gained value. And the market simply adapts to this new situation by asking something in return.

If the eco cutlery producer cannot produce something equal or greater in value then it simply means his "innately good idea", while perhaps well-intentioned, wasn't very good.

You're essentially lamenting the fact that people don't care enough about eco cutlery.

As no one wants to be at a financial loss but at the same time value anything healthier and better for their conscience. — Benj96

And that includes the eco cutlery producer, no?

Why don't they continue producing eco cutlery anyway, and simply soak up the loss, if it's such a good idea?

And that corrupts the innately good idea based on the free lunch (waste products being up cycled or used to make meaningful of valuable products). — Benj96

To suggest that the use of waste products equals a free lunch is wrong. It's a free lunch for the eco cutlery producer, paid for by the guac producer, so not a free lunch after all.

The amount of goods produced goes up, and as a result of the guac producer's free giving away of their waste product which the eco cutlery producer turns into value, the guac producer's buying power goes down as a result of their charity.

The only thing any living thing "pays" for lunch is the energy required to capture and digest it. — Benj96

Then it's not actually free, is it?

It turns out the labor cost of living in nature is actually quite high, which is why mankind does just about anything it can to avoid having to pay it.

The "problem of capitalism" even extends into the animal kingdom. :grin:

I see nothing wrong with the way the market functions in the example. It has nothing to do with greed or capitalism. This is how economies have always functioned.

If the eco cutlery producer expected a free lunch, that's their mistake. There is no free lunch.

Downing a drone amidst a full-scale war isn't really a big deal, and it doesn't compare to the actual destruction wrought on Ukraine on a daily basis.

What is interesting is the US reaction to this.

If the US was looking to get more involved in Ukraine, one would have expected this attack to spark a lot of anti-Russian war rhetoric. Perhaps it would even be used directly as an excuse to further support.

Instead we saw a rather timid reaction, which may signal the opposite: that the US isn't looking to give Ukraine the direct support it desperately needs, or that may be looking to bail on Ukraine altogether.

That is something I and a few other posters here have been predicting for a while.

My guess is this was a deliberate attack from the Russians.

They're getting bolder now that the war on the ground seems to be going their way.

By attacking the drone, they are basically looking for the US response, which so far has been rather mild.

That tells them the US aren't looking for an excuse to get further embroiled in Ukraine. It also gives off the signal to the US that Russia doesn't shy away from directly attacking US assets if they are involved in the war in Ukraine.

The timing of this attack, right as the West might face another financial crisis, is possibly also no coincidence.

https://liveuamap.com/

The situation is looking dire.

Russia seems to have shifted to pure attrition warfare. Essentially they surround an area like Bakhmut and then exploit the compromised position of the defenders until the defense becomes too costly to maintain. Their goal is not to swiftly gain ground, but to destroy Ukrainian forces.

Ukraine seems to be reluctant to give up ground, though it would probably be the strategically sensible thing to do.

Avdiivka seems next on the chopping block, with Marinka possibly following after. In the process of taking these areas, also the urban area between Bakhmut and Avdiivka will become vulnerable.

I thought you were talking about this website in particular in the previous comment. — Benkei

No, no. I haven't seen any form of censorship on this forum. Having voiced skeptical views throughout the pandemic I was met with some hostility, but that's the price of going against the grain, I suppose.

The dissenters were framed as "wappies" though; which often worked due to them having idiotic opinions on unrelated issues (like Chemtrails, WEF reset conspiracy and other crap). — Benkei

I genuinely wonder what percentage of skeptics truly held extreme views, on how much of that was simply framing along the lines of the same strategy that mentioned.

Who has been censored here? Seems like a bit of an exagerration. — Benkei

Wake up, man.

Have you seen a single piece of mainstream media coverage that was critical towards the government's covid strategy during the pandemic?

The only place I found those was on independent media outlets. You might say, "Well then it's not censorship", but what you'd be skipping is the fact that actively preventing critical voices from being heard by wider audiences is censorship, especially in today's day and age. I'd go as far as saying that providing critical voices a platform is a fundamental duty of legitimate governments.

And this didn't extend only to opinions. When research was done that showed results at odds with the narrative - voided, or simply swept under the rug by barrages of sweet nothings like "99% of doctors agree..."

My impression is that people who do not consider that censorship, in fact just thought it was fine for critical voices to be silenced.

Things have quieted down significantly with regard to Covid-19 which I would think would finally give room for more balanced discussions but instead it's like a pendulum swinging the other way. It's not very pretty to be honest. — Benkei

The difference between then and now is that no one is being censored.

If people don't want to speak in favor of the old narrative that's their prerogative.

I guess the part that isn't very pretty is how little the old narrative is supported now that the propaganda machines have ceased churning, at least on the topic of Covid.

So one wonders why you consistently only air one side of the debate. — Benkei

Only one side of the story is repeated over and over, and those seeing something wrong with this highlight the other side in an attempt to restore some semblance of balance back to the discussion, and are then asked "why they so consistently air only one side of the debate?"

Oddly reminiscent of the Ukraine situation.

There might be changes, but they wouldn't have anything to do with Trump or whatever blithering idiot they put in charge of the White House.

Well, the good doctor is quite careful in his wordings, but this just keeps getting worse and worse, doesn't it?

Also, why is it so quiet in this thread? :chin: