But I know what happens of mainstream forums like Twitter, Facebook. It is the Left wing people/Woke/PC cancelling people. — Andrew4Handel

Sure, I was just wondering who you are talking about, and that helps. No doubt you are right that it happens. How many times doesn't it happen, though? How many times is there a left wing person on one of these platforms who doesn't engage in the kind of rabid overreactions that concern you? Do you notice them? How many left wing people who don't go on these platforms are there? And do they engage in the practices you dislike? Do you think that the people you notice are a representative sample of 'the left'?

This why the left is eating itself. It has extended its reign of taking offense to the point that anyone even in the thick of the ranks can be cancelled and ostracised for a misstep. — Andrew4Handel

I consider myself broadly left wing. Do you think that I cancel and ostracise people?

Let me try!

Ok, here we go:

social + ism = socialism!

community + ism = communityism!

Wow! cool!

:up:

I think there is a direct relationship between statism and population. — James Riley

Yes that seems logical to me. Instinctively I have some sympathy with NOS on this. I love post apocalyptic stories and dramas that involve drastic population reduction so we have a nearly empty world again with no authorities. What authorities there are might be private gangs. So I'd probably start setting up a pubic authority asap and embark on a programme of public goods, as long as the electorate let me of course.

No matter what politician or party we vote for, the belief that a select coterie of fallible human beings should operate an all-powerful institution to meddle in the lives of everyone else is paramount, not only in those who seek to lead but also in those who seek to be led. — NOS4A2

A healthy state is not all powerful. Or even a half-healthy state. High taxation in a democracy generally goes with high accountability of the state to the population. Human Rights are a huge step forward in the protection of citizens. And only democratic states can reliably act for the common good. I am in favour of more statism to tackle worldwide problems such as climate change, reduction in biodiversity and tax havens. Only global level organisations can tackle these reliably it seems to me. I'd like a world government administered online.

It seems your objection to statism is very principled, and less practical, correct me if I'm wrong. You see it as fundamentally the removal of individual freedom, and that is such a bad thing that even common goods do not justify it.

Let's take an inflammatory/racist claim such as "Chinese people are inferior to Europeans"

Should this claim be discussed or censored? — Andrew4Handel

Any thread with that as its subject should probably be deleted. Not just because it is offensive but because it is ludicrous. If there were some kind of credible scientific study or something which said something interesting along these lines (which presumably there isn't), that might be worth a discussion. But even then it's not really philosophy and would be better on a social science or biology forum or something. If a post is philosophically uninteresting AND inflammatory/offensive why on earth would we want it on here? We don't have threads seriously arguing about the flatness of the earth, or geocentrism, or other obvious nonsense. If people want to post something offensive, it needs to at the very least be interesting in some way, and well argued.

For I seem to remember hearing somewhere that it is not explicit in the bible. — Bartricks

The Bible is short on actual metaphysics generally I think. Except maybe John a tiny bit, or Genesis if you want to get very interpretative. Even then it's not clear. You have to dig for it, and have an idea of what you want to find before you go looking.

Wouldn’t he be privy to all the information or knowledge that God has? — Pinprick

Well, maybe. Who knows. You could come up with something along the lines of, as the logos, the formal aspect of reality, the way things are, Jesus is the the knowledge God has. Or some such. Do you feel fobbed of with ad-(hic haec)hoc rationalisations? Or is this kind of thing good for you?

No. Blimey. Baby steps. It is wrong to mug me and give the proceeds to someone who has less. That's wrong. Okay? — Bartricks

Agreed!

Now, would it magically become okay if you put the matter to a vote - shall I mug bartricks and give the proceeds to this person who has less than Bartricks?

Not magically, but democratically, well, yes, unfortunately. I'd disagree, but that's just tough for me, as democracy is the least bad way of deciding things.

No. Obviously.

Not obviously. We're talking about practical rules, not my personal views.

Bert reasons: oh, so, er, you're now in favour of a dictatorship!!

Well, you're not in favour of voting to decide what is socially acceptable.

No, Berty. It would also be wrong if a dictator decides to mug me and give the proceeds to a person who has less.

I agree.

What you don't seem to understand is that our rights - the basic moral rights that a state, if it has any justification at all, is supposed to protect - are not a function of votes. You don't have a right to life and a right to non-interference because someone voted on it.

That is exactly why I have a right to life. In 1998 the UK formally adopted the ECHR and enacted the Human Rights Act 1998.

This isn't about democracy versus dictatorship. This is about what the state is entitled to do.

*shrug* What the state is and is not entitled to do is entirely dependent on how laws are made.

Let's say you need an organ. YOu'll die unless you get it. I have a spare one inside me. Are you entitled to cut me open and take it? No, obviously not. Can you hire someone else to do it on your behalf? No, obviously not.

It depends on what the law is in the jurisdiction in question. These are legal matters.

You may ask me to give it to you. Perhaps I ought to give it to you - not denying that - but still, it's not something you're entitled to take without my consent.

And by extension, someone else is not entitled to take it out of me without my consent and give it to you. Right?

Likewise, if I have some spare money and you need it, you have to ask for it and rely on my generosity or the generosity of others, not just take it from me. And by extension, if someone else decides to take it off me and give it to you, then they have wronged me as much as you would have done if you'd done so.

Simple and obvious stuff.

What if I'm responsible for you needing the organ in question? What if I voluntarily did something to you without your consent that resulted in you needing an organ? Well, now it's plausible that I owe you the organ and that this is a debt that can be paid with force if necessary. So 'now' you may - plausibly - take the organ from me even if I do not wish to give it to you. And by extension, others may do it on your behalf.

These are legal matters. To influence the law according to my values, I can vote in a democracy.

Hence why it is parents - who, by their voluntary procreative decisions knowingly burden others with a lifetime of work among other things - owe those they create a living, a living that can be extracted by force if necessary. THus parents can justly be taxed to provide everyone (bar themselves, of course) with a minimum income. (More than minimum, incidentally - enough to live on with dignity).

But those of us who have been decent enough not to do that to others should not pay a penny. Not until or unless we start violating the rights of others.

Rights only make sense to me in a legal context. Again, these are all legal matters.

Either you're a girl or your wife/girlfriend/mom is really bossy. — Benkei

:) I grew up in 1980s Britain. Thatcher was everyone's bossy mum back then.

I think the reasons depend on whether it is a true belief or not. If it's false, then perhaps humans are a bit crazy and have a tendency to believe any old nonsense. On the other hand, if it is true, then it could be because humans have considered the evidence and happily arrived at the correct conclusion. So to answer the question we have to first work out whether it's true or not. Then the fun begins. — Cuthbert

This.

As well as philosophy and reason, I'm not willing to dismiss felt intuitions. Introspection is often an unreliable guide to they way things are, but sometime sit may be perfectly reliable. It might simply be that some people do have genuine insight. Philosophers can't do much conclusively with the testimony of others, or even their own, of course. And I don't think that all claims of God's existence are extraordinary, although some are. The existence of Zeus on Mt Olympus is of course an extraordinary claim. But there are other God concepts which assert agency and consciousness at the beginning of things, and that seems entirely plausible. Indeed, echoing Un, it's not clear to me that the easy 'default' theoretical position is that there is no such agency. I don't think it's an extraordinary claim.

My system is better. Make the polluters pay. That is, make make parents pay. They have violated rights and owe their offspring a living and others protection from their offspring. That debt can rightfully be collected. Thus taxing parents so that they pay for the problems they have created is just. Taxing others is not - it is extracting money with menaces, and that's wrong unless the money is owed. — Bartricks

OK, so a dictatorship with these values. What if the dictator changes her mind?

so it's okay to mug me and to give the proceeds to the hungry person if there's been a vote on it?? What moral planet are you on? — Bartricks

Yes, because it's the least bad system. And we have to have a system, because there are lots of us in a small space.

Zenny, are you OK?

You admit yourself in Holland people are puzzled. — Zenny

Benkei is famously from Norway. Well one of those hurdy flurdy countries anyway.

Not being racist is a lot easier. — Baden

Easier, yes. Easy, no.

Great stuff from Pfhorrest. Forum quality overall just shot up.

You're telling me that if your friends and family were targeted despite having no real involvement you'd shrug it off as David's rightful fury. Now I no longer think you're a racist you just have no loyalty to anyone. — BitconnectCarlos

That's interesting. For some, loyalty to friends and loved ones really does trump wider considerations, for others it doesn't. And some are conflicted, and reluctantly and ashamedly prioritise loved ones over doing what they feel is right.

Both of these books are Strawson's. Maybe Chalmers wrote in the latter book, as it contained many responses by philosophers. — Manuel

Oh, fair enough. They both must have written something by the same title. Chalmers wrote a (very good IMO) paper Consciousness and its Place in Nature.

I forgot to add, this version of his panpsychism comes from his two most cited works I believe, Realistic Monism and Consciousness and Its Place in Nature. — Manuel

The first is Galen Strawson, the second I think is Chalmers. Chalmers wasn't a panpsychist last time I looked, but he's open to it. I thought Strawson's panpsychism did assert that micro-scale systems like an atom or whatever do have experiences. But it's a while since I read Strawson on that.

THe building blocks are not 'a bit shaped'. They're shaped. They'd need to be othewise we'd have the emergence of shape, which would be an emergence every bit as radical as that of consciousness. — Bartricks

I accept the force of this intuition. I do think that everything is conscious, and I do not think that the concept of consciousness admits of degree. Shape might be another good example of a property that does not admit of degree, I'm not sure.

Your comment makes no sense. — Bartricks

Would you like me to explain it more fully?

If it is not emergent, then we can use it to model what Strawson is saying, yes? If it is emergent, then we can't and it would constitute a counterexample. Agree? — Bartricks

No serious panpsychist would ever assert that emergence in general is impossible. Of course all kind of properties are emergent, indeed the majority of them presumably. The problem is specifically with consciousness. And difficulties with the emergence of consciousness from severally and prior non-conscious entities and systems is one reason that people turn to panpsychism. This problem does not arise for the idealist of course, and I have some sympathy with that view. Some versions of idealism are also panpsychist. Sprigge was a panpsychist idealist.

Panpsychism and unconsciousness. I take it that I am sometimes unconscious. How's that possible on Strawson's view? — Bartricks

It's identity not consciousness that is lost.

A lot depends on whether Pfhorrest is posting or not.

QUESTION 1. Apart from political outlook, what is it that makes us accept or reject a conspiracy or conspiracy theory? — Apollodorus

One hopes, things like evidence, coherence, inference to the best explanation, cui bono considerations, etc.

QUESTION 2. How can conspiracy or “conspiracy theory” be discussed without participants falling into either of the extremes? Is this at all possible, or are we reaching a point of no return where the concept of dialogue and debate has lost all meaning? — Apollodorus

By following rational principles I guess. *shrug*

The trouble is alternative facts. When we can't agree on a body of evidence from which to draw conclusions, it's hard to see how people can be reconciled. It's really back to basics.

I do think it's important to consider conspiracy theories on a case by case basis, and avoid dismissing them on the basis of the political views of the person advocating for them (genetic fallacy). Sometimes involves a bit or work, other times it's easy. I'm not particularly good at it, my general knowledge is poor, so I lack good context from which to make a judgement.

EDIT: Apologies for the banality of this post.

There's a lot of bullshit here, but there always has been. There are also plenty of interesting threads. Why worry about those that don't have much to say or just bang the same old gongs. They give us a chance to feel all superior. I know for me they also give me an opportunity to argue against positions I think are wrong-headed while staying civil and respectful. I need work on that. I can avoid discussions of anti-natalism, free will, Israel, relativity denial, the effects of quantum entanglement on haddock catches in the Bay of Fundy, and anything else that annoys me. I can also start threads of my own.

I don't see much in the way of "evangelical nuts" here. And what you are calling "racist apologists" also include needed criticism of the social justice movement and other similar ideologies. Moderators are pretty quick to crack down on posters who go over what they consider the line to the point that reasonable argument is often shut down or never starts. — T Clark

Yes. I agree with this as well. I dunno. It is possible to ignore the bollocks. And sometimes it turns out not to be complete bollocks after all, and those moments are valuable. There used to be more evangelical nuts than now. We're getting the 'culture wars' coming up more now. It's interesting in a way. I like to meet people rather than caricatures, and this forum provides an opportunity to do that.

YYYYYYYYYYES. This entire post bears repeating (and can't be repeated enough as far as I'm concerned). — 180 Proof

Yeah. I think I agree with you. But I'm not sure. Social media is an echo-chamber. That's OK to an extent. But I also want to be exposed to not-me. So this forum serves that function pretty well. But then it's a philosophy forum, and I am the first to admit am an elitist snob and want to see proper philosophy done. I suppose what I'd like is to have the clever top tier of right wing capitalist pig dogs posting on here. But they don't care about philosophy, indeed they are anti-philosophy (philosophy is an inherently left wing liberal elitist activity), they are too busy ripping people off, not paying taxes and persuading savages to vote for them otherwise commies like Jeremy and Bernie will take over and outlaw tax havens.

You were serious? — Tom Storm

No! You were right the first time. I was just seeing how far I could troll Apollodorus. I was starting to think he might have been counter-trolling me. I had to turn against you and Banno to try and maintain the pretence. All over now. Or is it?

My understanding is it is supported by the Rockefeller Foundation under a subsidiary of the Fabianism and post-modern Marxist funny handshake collective. — Tom Storm

*shrug* You can mock all you want, it doesn't change the facts.

And how come there is no info on it anywhere? — Apollodorus

Someone did mention it but the thread got deleted. I'm guessing they're leaving this thread because Banno &co are mocking the idea that there is funding from left wing organisations, making it all seem silly. I don't know. EDIT: it would look suspicious if the mods deleted this thread now.

Also, I don't seem to find any info on where this forum is located or who exactly owns or controls it. — Apollodorus

I heard it receives some of its funding from the New Internationalist.

Jews have traditionally voted Labour - and so do Muslims. They are fighting for control of the party. — counterpunch

Is that an inference, or an observation, or something else?

And "black lives matter" is a part of "all lives matter".
There's some focus on that sub-set because some systemic discrimination has been seen in particular.
By refusing to say "black lives matter" and instead just keep saying "all lives matter" you haven't really said much, except to deny or ignore something that needs addressing.
Red herring? Ignoratio elenchi? — jorndoe

This is way better than Banno's effort.

If every new generation is a degeneration from the last, surely we should be extinct by now?

It's the worst philosophy forum apart from all the others. The old forum died but Jamalrob reanimated its remains.

This is a rare occasion when I can agree with Benkei, 180, Street and NOS in the same breath! Hurrah!

Your logic only applies to a single mind, such as God. — unenlightened

Yes, I think it likely jorndoe is talking about God. And on this I agree with him (Cuthbert's interesting aside about different usages of if..then.. notwithstanding.)

"If...then..." does not always operate as you might expect. "If p, then q" entails "if not-q, then not-p". But e.g. suppose if you want an eclaire (p), then you can eat one (q). However it does not follow that, if you don't want an eclaire (not-q), then you cannot eat one (not-p). — Cuthbert

I like this. :)

In other contexts your post would fit perfectly. And maybe it is welcome here as well, I don't know. I thought you would like to know what a philosophy forum is about so you can make informed decisions in the future about what you want to post in them.