Sure, totally invalid - unless you add the premise that 'goes without saying' -"The church should emulate Jesus."

But of course Jesus so didn't stay out of politics, hanging out with tax collectors and overturning the tables of the moneychangers and all, so it's all tosh anyway.

First, "should/should not," "allowed/not allowed" and the like aren't going to be part of traditional logic. — Terrapin Station

Logic does not concern itself with the meaning of the terms, and classical logic can perfectly well operate with moral premises and conclusions.

All terrapins are evil.
You are a terrapin.
Therefore you are evil.

A valid argument, though not necessarily true.

Group A should not engage in topic B.
Subject X is part of Topic B.
Therefore, Group A should not engage in Subject X — marshill

This, on the other hand would only be valid if part of topic B is topic B.

Which it isn't.

So part of driving a car is getting in the car, but just because I shouldn't drive the car (not having a licence) does not mean I shouldn't get in the car.

The price is not being allowed to enter the US. — Brett

If it has a price, it's not free. :joke:

It seems weird and very naive to me that there would have ever been many people, especially educated people, who didn't see politicians/heads of state/etc. as more or less being "professional liars." — Terrapin Station

It seems weird to me that any educated person could imagine that a society built on lies could long survive.

Wikipedia Shows How to Handle Political Polarization.

This is rather interesting. Wikipedia is, I would say, a radically socialist, (as in communal, non-profit) institution that values truth. And it has developed a bureaucracy and system of self-governance that seems to work to harness conflict and polarisation, and a topic neutral ethos that supports good behaviour and discourages and reduces the influence of vitriol and bullying. I'm going to look a bit further at this, and I think @Banno has some experience that might be useful.

I just have this vague idea that there is something potentially useful to be learned for the way we conduct politics and even possibly for the way we organise this very site.

multiple octaves — BrianW

Radio waves are one form of EMF. ... Electromagnetic waves cover a vast frequency range from ELF Extremely low frequency of less than 1 Hz (cycles per second) up to hard gamma rays at over 300 EHz (EHz is 10 to the power 18 cycles per second). — google

If I have it right, that's around 48 octaves, but it's late and the bottle is empty. Anyway, the music of the spheres is a very old idea, and it turns out that matter has a wavelength too.

However, colour harmony as we humans know it works very differently and is related to the colour sensors of the eye which do not distinguish at all well the difference between a mixture of red and green wavelengths and the pure yellow wavelength. The way we see is as if the spectrum of wavelengths were joined to make a circle, as if the highest note on the piano lead to the lowest, which sounded' higher' ...

Well I know what I mean even if you don't!

...who could be more typical of all women and men who ever lived than 23 Columbia University students having a scan for a neuroscience experiment? — mcdoodle

Ooh, Sir. I know sir. Me sir.

are you willing to concede that had Noa's parents or had a judge intervened on her behalf and she still lived today, still as painfully as the day her life ended, that you'd be in agreement with the intervention? — Hanover

I would be; in the circumstance as is, of relying on media hysteria, my inclination would be to trust the judgement of those closer to the scene as my inclination is in the case anyway.

We do our best. — Hanover

This! Not everyone does, every time, but mostly...

I lean heavily for her intervention... — Hanover

I would too as a first instinct. I retreat from there based on what I understand to be a situation that has seen interventions for years and years. They did their best, and failed, and failed, and failed. Sometimes the only best left is to admit that your best is just not good enough. Cures are the best, but sometimes there is no cure, and palliative care is all that is left.

I think it is hard for a male to understand the identity issues around sexual violation for a woman, but it was fairly commonplace traditionally for a violated woman to restore herself by suicide, rather as a Japanese man might restore his honour by harakiri. It doesn't fit modern western culture, but that doesn't make it insane. There have always been fates worse than death.

I see your line of thinking as just as rigid as you see mine. — NKBJ

Then you are not paying attention. My response varies between children and adults, it varies between forcible treatment and euthanasia, it varies between critical and chronic conditions and it varies according to mental competence. And my posts have been directed mainly at drawing these distinctions and relating them to the balance to be drawn between the autonomy of the patient (and parent if applicable) and the authority of the doctor.

Whereas you seem to universalise across these distinctions and ignore the patient's view entirely.

I suppose you mean even in cases when the patient is underage and probably not the best judge of her own interests. — NKBJ

When the patient is under age, it is normally the parent-or-guardian's decision, as being in the best position to represent the child's interests. Very rarely, if their decision is extreme, it becomes a matter for the courts if the medics see fit to dispute. In the case of cancer treatments, this is quite unlikely, because serious treatments are nearly always risky, potentially harmful not foolproof and so it would be rare for a refusal of treatment to be so unreasonable as to warrant a court case. More often, it is the other way about, that doctors wish to discontinue treatment, and parents want them to continue.

Medical ethics are not amenable to this one size fits all absolutist mentality. Life is complicated and issues require nuanced thinking.

We're going in circles and I'm not sure I see a way out of it. — NKBJ

The way out is to see that rigid thinking will not answer. It is to see that the patient's experience must always be considered and weighed; it is not just a matter of facts and probabilities, but of human individuality.

How would you think if this was about cancer patients? Would you allow a patient to die without interfering in their cancer because the treatment is "only" a 50/50 chance and chemo sucks? — NKBJ

Of course. It happens all the time, and it's for the patient to decide and nobody else. Patients refuse treatment for various reasons, religious, or whatever. It would be monstrous if doctors could just treat people whenever they thought it was worthwhile.

Lest the extravagance of this likening strains the imagination, consider this case:
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/apr/23/acid-attack-partner-intended-really-serious-harm-court-told

Not a nice story I'm afraid, but one might be of a mind to consider a rape to constitute a similarly irreparable scarring of the person - to one who sees themselves in a particular way. Sometimes the very suggestion of 'getting over it' is a devaluing of the lost integrity of personhood, adding further insult to what is taken to be a lethal humiliation.

Let's say it's 50/50. — NKBJ

Let's say I've been gently boiling you in oil for a few years - for your own good mind - and not enough to do more than make your life unbearable. And let's say, because you are a bit sceptical and I am optimistic, that a few more years of constant agony will give a 50 % chance of recovery. "My argument stands" doesn't really do very much here. Any price is worth paying to someone who doesn't have to pay the price.

I do not see how a "time of need" has an expiration date. — NKBJ

Perhaps you can see that childhood does though. Perhaps you might see, if you think about if "this young lady were ALIVE and being TREATED and given the chance at HAPPINESS" for a few years and she is still not happy, that your thinking might as well have an end. Perhaps you might allow that treatment might not work, that happiness might not be attainable, that being alive might not always be good.

That is a hard thing to do, because it brings one's own life into question, and not every life can stand up to such scrutiny.

Having to think hard and well about what is best for another human being in distress is hard work, and you apparently don't have the guts to do it. You'd rather abandon them in their time of need. — NKBJ

This is unfair on two counts; firstly, it begs the whole question of whether one can or should 'think for' another in the case where your thoughts contradict theirs, and secondly it glosses over the fact that this not 'their time of need', but a situation that has gone on for years already. and that's ignoring the personal innuendo.

Another way to put this is that we are always in the 'sphere of meaning': even if we misunderstanding a meaning, what we misunderstand is a meaning, and not, say, a mere sound (we neither understand nor misunderstand noises). — StreetlightX

This reminded me of the following:

Why is it so effective when gaslighters/narcissists continue their lie, even when there is easily accessed evidence to the contrary? Because it tends to work. First, you get confused as to why someone would blatantly lie. It goes against what you know as normal human behavior. Most people, when caught in a lie, will admit to it and apologize. (Most people also tend to not blatantly lie in the first place.) The more confusion you feel upon hearing the gaslighter/narcissist's blatant lie, the more you start to remember the gaslighter's defense or continued lying, not the actual truth that he is lying about.

from here.

That is to say, we are not always in the sphere of meaning, but one cannot help thinking one is, one finds meaning in the utterances of Trump the way one sees faces in the clouds.

Well it ends with death, in the sense that it is completed, or it continues as long as death is postponed. Don't be pedantically literal.

Or perhaps one recovers, perhaps one can be cured. But this possibility turns out to be 'just a fiction' in some cases. In this case a fiction of many years telling, and eventually ending in fatalism and fatality.

No I don't agree. Suffering is real.

not to troll you; but, it's that kind of attitude that leads to this outcome. — Wallows

Yes. And the attitude of 'never give up' leads to endless suffering. Take your pick.

We can't allow all depressed teens to commit suicide, just because they cannot see the light at the end of the tunnel. — NKBJ

It's a no win situation. — Wallows

I agree.

Yeah, so under that psychological assessment, then doesn't this lead to the conclusion that she was non compos mentis? — Wallows

No. I can see it, you can see it, even @NKBJ can see it. So if someone feels something such that anybody can well understand how they would feel it, that is evidence that they are perfectly compos mentis.

But personally, I would not presume to make any diagnosis or decision in such a tragic and difficult case on the basis of even quite a good newspaper report.

I think in a situation of crisis, one would tend to intervene, but the length of time in this case seems to indicate that many things have been tried and have failed. So it is not a question of intervening or not, so much as a question of stopping intervening when many interventions have failed utterly.

You conveniently neglect the main difference I pointed out: — NKBJ

No I didn't. I noted that it related to the feelings and motivation of the actor, and not the feelings of the recipient of their action. I even commented in particular that your focus was directed away from the victim's feelings. You conveniently neglected this.

But perhaps you think oral vaccines are rape too. — NKBJ

Forcing something down one's throat, or up one's arse, or into one's vagina, or even directly into one's bloodstream, against one's will are somewhat similar. I think you might be able to acknowledge that much.

For someone who has been raped twice, having another forced penetration of another orifice is liable to be traumatic to the extent of putting in her mind, the medics on a par with the rapists; I do not think oral vaccines are rape, but I do think forcible administration is an assault unjustified in most circumstances where the individual is capable of giving or withholding consent.

Yes, with the primary exception being when the person suffers from mental illness. — Hanover

Think I would say unconsciousness and infancy are more primary.

The rape analogy is a total mischaracterization because rape is about hurting someone for one's own gratification. Force-feeding is perhaps aggressive and painful, but it is solely for the benefit of the receiver. — NKBJ

The analogy is appropriate to the feelings of the person the receiving end, rather than the feelings of the performer of the act. Interesting that you seem to regard the feelings and motivation of the rapist or medic more significant that those of the victim/patient. But from their pov both are violations of the body by forcible penetration of an intimate orifice against one's will, and in such a case, forced feeding would almost certainly be experienced as a third rape.

My position is had she been euthanized or had she been allowed to die without active assistance, I'd be opposed — Hanover

Well I hope at least you can see that these are two different issues. Generally, the right to refuse treatment is fairly fundamental, such that treatment without consent is assault in most circumstances.

The problem rests in trying to distinguish her wishes from her current illness. Her 17 year old mental state could well be temporary, but her decision while now weighed down with trauma will be permanent. I would impose whatever necessary to keep her alive at this point at least. If this were a 40 year old with decades of pain, a better case might be made to allow her to die. — Hanover

But now you are not talking about euthanasia at all, but about forcible treatment against one's will on the grounds presumably of mental incompetence.

Which is a bit off topic.

People who bought this book also bought a handy keyring bottle-opener. According to Amazon. :smile:

Here's something a bit peripheral ... https://humanparts.medium.com/the-danger-in-fake-positivity-and-spiritual-bypassing-c202040b8dd3?fbclid=IwAR3-R-geVAiM9-jahx94XAaZXPN4TgQtE4Vfnua8CcP-CWtdWzsglfmv9ms

NOt sure if this is a joke, — Coben

Sorry. To reassure you, it was a joke, intended to suggest that this is a silly trollish topic. I used to take my daughter swimming, and there is a delicate moment when a child becomes aware of the niceties of social conformity and decides to go alone to the 'appropriate' room. And just to end the controversy, it is the delicate sensitivity of the child that must be respected, and philosophers politicians, lawyers should all keep their damn noses out.

If bathrooms have sex, then surely there must be baby bathrooms somewhere?

The dishonest are capable of hiding their dishonesty, and that's how they deceive us. — Metaphysician Undercover

Sure, and we only know that we have been deceived when we are undeceived. Nevertheless, we must trust each other or live alone. And we understand that the third party is often the most trustworthy, so if you need a builder, ask the neighbours for a recommendation.

Are you starting to see why you shouldn't have been so quick to trust me? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, not at all.

I really don't think you are even talking about trust here. You are judging whether a particular person is fit for a specific job (has the adequate training), not whether the person is trustworthy. — Metaphysician Undercover

Well I am talking about something, that I am calling trust. Here's the thing; I know that I am not competent, and do not anyway have the time or access to make a judgement of the competence of my surgeon. So I have to trust (or not) that the institutions of the hospital and the medical authorities are competent and that they exercise their judgement on my behalf and in my best interests.

If anyone is still following, here is some more stuff.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jun/02/stephen-porges-interview-survivors-are-blamed-polyvagal-theory-fight-flight-psychiatry-ace?fbclid=IwAR0Bi30N_ykulk2XHaG6X5JvoeLZK7NZjDzMfu9mbDLy_KmI74-tvZDg3Lg

I still don't understand. You are willing to trust anyone, yet no one is entitled to that trust. On what basis do you give your trust? If trust is some thing that you just randomly give to anyone at anytime, for no apparent reason, how is it of any value? — Metaphysician Undercover

Well I don't know how it is for you, but if I am a bit lost, I will ask a total stranger the way to the station, or whatever and totally trust that they will send me the right way if they can. But on the other hand, if I don't like the cut of his jib, I will not trust him and not ask. Totally my privilege, and nothing earned or unearned.

Isn't this exactly what enforcement says? It says that I do not trust that others will be trustworthy, so I want to enact measure to ensure that they will be. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, exactly what enforcement says. Except that enforcement does not speak, and enforcement does trust or mistrust. Institutions enforce -- so that -- we can trust. The way to the station is one thing, but I do not ask a random stranger to operate on my hernia, or govern the country. the weirdness of your difficulty is becoming unsettling...

So a law against lying would institutionalize mistrust? Does an oath of office also do that? — frank

I don't understand. Do you think institutions are the kind of thing that is capable of trusting or distrusting? I say it is the reverse, that people trust institutions or not, and they trust them the way they trust bridges - if they are well made they are trustworthy, and otherwise probably not. So a well made institution institutes relations of trustworthiness by having strong measures for weeding out incompetents and malevolants. I trust the surgeon because not anyone can just set up as a surgeon - the institution regulates to promote trust.

I am saying we need to trust each other, so we need robust institutions that facilitate our trust. Is that something strange?

Are you saying that all people are entitled to your trust whether or not they are righteous? — Metaphysician Undercover

No, the opposite; no one is entitled to anyone's trust.

Are you saying that you place no conditions on your trust? — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, in so far as one trusts, which may be as far as one can throw or some other extent, there can be no conditions. If I set a condition: - 'I'll trust you to respond thoughtfully, but if you don't, I'll kill you', then I don't trust you to respond thoughtfully, do I?

What would make the op pop is a convincing historical reconstruction of a time when people *did* trust politicians. — csalisbury

Well I simply recount anecdotally that the zeitgeist round here has changed in that direction. But there have always been and still are politicians that I or others trust, even when we disagree. one can be honest or not on left and right equally, so I don't really see the necessity...?

I would never earn your trust? Are you paranoid or what? — Metaphysician Undercover

No. I'm saying that trust cannot be earned. I trust you already. It's not something you are entitled to because you are righteous.

Or is it a certain kind of society that you're really favoring? — frank

No ,it is possible to be unsocial, like pandas are, but if there are social relations, they depend on trust, in the same way that language depends on truth - if no one tells the truth, language becomes useless and nobody would bother with it. That's it - social, or solitary - there isn't another option.

The astute reader will have noticed that this is by way of a critique of Machiavelli. The king, the corporate director, the hedge fund manager, the political leader, have moral obligations just like the janitor and the forum poster.

One of the things that happened in the UK that constituted the degeneration of politics in large part was the Bairite move from conviction politics to focus group politics. Rather than try to convince the electorate to support what they believed to be the right policies, the Blair New Labour method was to find out from focus groups what was popular, and make that the policy. From amorality comes immorality.

In the US, it could be accomplished by the judiciary because there's a federal statute about defrauding the US. A prosecutor would have to show that the lie was intentional. — frank

Well in a way, if we can persuade ourselves that this is important to our lives, that we can trust politicians and officials the way we have to (even if we cannot absolutely) trust drivers to stop at red lights, then most of the work is done. I don't think everyone is convinced yet though. There is a contingent of 'freedom of speech is freedom to lie and cheat and undermine the fabric of society.' Once we've crossed that bridge, I think I can trust the lawyers to get a robust and balanced system in place, especially if we hold them accountable if they don't.

Similarly, t.here is a rule that you cannot print your own money. And that establishes legal tender as something that ought to be trustworthy, and obligates governments to act to maintain it so. That there may be forgers as that there may be shoplifters and dishonest politicians is not in question, we need it to be the case that there ought not be.