Maybe because there are other factors. :roll: — frank

I agree that there are. Hence why I said:

Surely, slavery and racism are more significant causes of racial segregation than anything you mentioned here.
— ZhouBoTong

Notice I did not dismiss your factors. Just pointed to more significant over-arching factors. I have not been convinced (you haven't really tried to be fair) that slavery and racism were less of a factor in segregation than anything you have mentioned.

It seems very safe to stake out the claim that "Prior to the Civil War, most Americans were racist". it's also safe to stake out the claim that Americans were racist after the civil war. — Bitter Crank

Indeed. Which is why I am finding it a little strange that I am here being forced to defend "most were racist before the Civ War."

The English did not introduce slavery because they were racists. They bought sold, and transported slaves because it was profitable. Slavery is old school -- going back a very long ways. — Bitter Crank

For sure. Racial slavery fostered racism. Slavery harms the owner as much as the slave (well not really, but certainly morally). The Frederick Douglas autobiography captures this (the degradation of the slave OWNER) very well.

Racism isn't a requirement for developing a slave system. — Bitter Crank

Indeed it is not. But it certainly makes any slave system worse. Other slave systems typically did not have hereditary slavery either.

The 3/5 compromise counted the slaves along with whites, just subtracting 40% of their numerical weight. The purpose was to reduce the represented population of the slave-holding states. — Bitter Crank

As to the 3/5s compromise, you need to do some research; — tim wood

There seems to be some confusion here. Yes, everything Bitter Crank said was correct. So why is it evidence that most of the country was racist? Because the ANTI-slavery side is the side saying that slaves should not count as a person (the COMPROMISE was to subtract 40%, the north did not want slaves to count at all). Obviously, counting them as a full person would have given more power to slave states, and that is no good. But saying they should not count as a person shows an inherent racism (otherwise they would notice the contradiction).

Thomas Jefferson, slave owner, probably did not count Sally Hemings as sub-human when he had sex with her. — Bitter Crank

Well men have had sex with women throughout all of history, and still felt comfortable saying they should not be allowed to vote...so I am not sure how much respect is required. I would also think that Thomas Jefferson would be the type to talk how great the African people were, ALMOST as good as white people.

Also, viewing the perpetuation of slavery as worth it, because I (Thomas Jefferson) would be a poor ass pauper without the slaves, may not be NECESSARILY racist (seems likely though), it is certainly condemn-able, and very hypocritical considering his own writings.

any modern racism, you have to go to some trouble to understand and define the terms. — tim wood

I did, but I may not have been clear. I said, not modern I am uncomfortable racism, but old fashioned DEFINITIONAL racism. One race is superior/inferior.

Prior to the 1890s, southern blacks were accumulating wealth and learning how to navigate the political system. — frank

Yes, as long as whites were held in check at gunpoint (the union army), black people made progress.

Jim Crow was a violent movement intended to bring that progress to an end and reverse it. — frank

Indeed, but without Reconstruction and the Union Army, the progress NEVER would have occurred in the first place.

White supremacists believed that the association of whites with black would destroy white culture, so their racism was (is) about what they see as self-preservation. — frank

I am not sure the point of this sentence...so, they are justified in their racism?

The southern fascism you refer to only hurt black people. Does that give a hint as to why the rest of the country did not care?
— ZhouBoTong

It's a myth that racism only exists in the southeast. — frank

That was exactly my point. No one got up in arms over Jim Crow BECAUSE most of the country was racist anyway.

Prior to the Civil War, most Americans were racist and made no effort to hide it.
— ZhouBoTong

How are we establishing that, exactly?

(I just quoted that because it was the first thing there's an issue with.) — Terrapin Station

Really? The FACT that they made no effort to hide it means we have a LOT of evidence.

And I am not talking new racism where you are racist if you are uncomfortable around another race. I mean old fashioned definitional racism, "they are inferior".

Are you comfortable admitting that Jefferson and Washington were racist? Surely, owning slaves (based on race) counts as evidence of their racism? I am not saying we should stop celebrating their achievements, but we need to acknowledge facts.

Also, I just said "most" Americans. That doesn't specify whether most is 51% or 99%. Is it really debatable that "prior to the Civil War" at least 51% of Americans were racist?

I guess we mostly only have evidence that historical figures were racist. We don't know what EVERY American thought. However, it is fairly (entirely?) consistent through history that the lower classes are more racist (and the racist representatives they voted for represent their racism).

I am willing to go through many specific examples of evidence, like say, the 3/5 compromise, if really necessary. I am actually a bit confused by your doubts. Why do you think most Americans were NOT racist prior to the Civil War?

the sword of abrupt climate breakdown now looms ever larger as governments are rendered impotent. — xraymike79

I can accept this as generally true.

Do you have any suggested courses of action? Or are we all aware of this, but due to the status quo, can do nothing but sit back and watch the planet burn?

My only idea would be a MASSIVE protest where citizens of all nations (well the developed ones anyway) refuse to pay taxes until new climate policies are enacted (do the masses have ANY other power over government? - sure we could vote, but that hasn't worked so well so far). But if there are not huge numbers involved, the tax dodgers will just be arrested.

. For one, racial segregation was an outgrowth of slavery,
— Echarmion — frank

Seems obvious enough.

It wasnt a simple outgrowth from slavery. — frank

I agree, but you are the one that added the word "simple".

It was an outgrowth of anxiety associated with the 1890's economic depression coupled with the failure of southern progressives, socialists, and communists to deliver support to the poverty stricken, leading to the rise of southern demagogues who resorted to race baiting, which led to a violent take-over by white supremacists who passed laws to reduce black votership from 50-70% to 3%. — frank

While all of the above occurred, that just adds to the complexity that exists in any historical situation. Surely, slavery and racism are more significant causes of racial segregation than anything you mentioned here. You state the above like racism didn't exist until the 1890s.

which led to a violent take-over by white supremacists who passed laws to reduce black votership from 50-70% to 3%. — frank

This was due to the end of reconstruction. An army stationed in the South prevented those white supremacists from reducing black votership until this time.

If the rest if the US had given a fuck while the South descended into fascism, Jim Crow wouldnt have happened. — frank

The southern fascism you refer to only hurt black people. Does that give a hint as to why the rest of the country did not care?

There weren't slaves in the US 60 years ago.

The claim was that it's connected to slavery. — Terrapin Station

You're taking the claim unreasonably literally. — Echarmion

You concede too much Echarmion. Terrapin, aren't you from the U.S. (I am almost always wrong in my assumptions about people here)? It shouldn't seem that difficult to connect the Civil Rights Movement (60 years ago) to slavery?

Well since you will certainly have your reasons, here is a quick history (leaving out most of the egregious details):

Prior to the Civil War, most Americans were racist and made no effort to hide it. Many of those opposed to slavery (abolitionists), would be quick to admit that African people were inferior.

Following the Civil War, the 13, 14, and 15th amendments must be passed to correct racist errors in the constitution. Radical Republicans controlled congress and passed a severe, but entirely necessary, Reconstruction Act. Among other important features, this act authorized the U.S. military to basically act as police in the South, enforcing things like the right to vote for black people.

Unfortunately, the North felt uncomfortable "punishing" their white counterparts in the South for very long (racism). As we reach the 1880s, the South has been "punished" enough :roll:, and Reconstruction ends.

With the end of Reconstruction comes the return of the status quo in the South. The same people who were in power before/during the Civil War, are back in power. Now, they can't re-institute slavery without fear of another Reconstruction, but they can restore just about everything else. By 1893 (plessy v ferguson), Jim Crow laws are official, and black people are legally second class citizens (again).

Before I continue (I assume you are sick of this already, haha), can you see that slavery is connected to Jim Crow laws? If not, I have more work to do before I can show their connection to the Civil Right Movement (which was a direct response to the environment created fostered by Jim Crow laws). If you don't see a connection, can you maybe show where the gap is? It seems pretty air tight to me. Maybe we need to confirm we both mean the same thing with the word "connected'?

Kind of like a natural evil of necessity; thus, we survived not in spite of our evil and. violence but because of it. Even our cooperation was for a better hunt and kill. — PoeticUniverse

I (mostly, haha) understand the colloquial usage of evil. However, once evil is defined, I am not sure it actually exists.

Isn't your quote saying that our violent and savage sides may serve a useful purpose? Words like "violent" and "savage" have specific meanings with far less connotative baggage than "evil". Evil only seems a useful word in relation to religion and super-villains.

I did not say that evil was not evil. It is, obviously.
I said that the evils in our evolution are required if we are to not go extinct. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

well if we define evil:

profoundly immoral and wicked. (a quick definition of wicked gives "morally wrong")

Isn't morality put simply, "how we ought to behave"?

If what you describe as "evil" is required to prevent extinction, then it IS something that we ought to do. So by definition, it is NOT evil.

Sorry if I am overly focused on definitions. I get that religious folk use the word "evil" in all sorts of crazy ways.

Compare the evil in our extinction with the evils we produce to maintain our evolution and you will see why we have to tolerate the evils that our evolution forces upon us in our seeking the fittest. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

You spend too much time with the religious, haha. There are much better words we can use than "evil" to describe what you are referring to above. It brings religious baggage to an issue that can be entirely explained without it. I would not tend to view acts of nature (potentially human extinction) as good or evil.

In the way I think, there is no conflict between god and nature/evolution. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Me neither. But that is easy if you don't believe in any of the gods.

That is why it is true that we live in the best of all possible worlds, given that it is the only possible world. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

This reminds me of, "god is the most perfect conceivable being. a being that exists is more perfect than one that doesn't. Therefor, god exists."

While I agree that it is the only "world" we know of, what do we know of what is possible?

Yes love fades but what doesn't? A truism that people who enjoy their work are fully aware of. Don't you think? — TheMadFool

I am not sure what they are aware of, as they are using a quote that does not seem to reflect reality.

So what exactly is the quote I was ranting against trying to say then?

If you do what you love, you'll never work a day in your life — Marc Anthony

Given that "love" will fade (so fulfilling the conditions of the "if" is impossible), how am I to achieve the "never work a day in your life"?

Below I will add a bit more, but the above is likely the only part worth responding to.

Yes love fades but what doesn't? — TheMadFool

That also wasn't my whole point. Most things that people enjoy, are very different once they become a job. Playing soccer at the park is not the same as playing professionally. Practicing martial arts, or anything, is a lot different from teaching. In fact, all teaching is more "fun and love-able" absent the expectations and pressures that come with a paycheck. A big part of my point is that people never "loved" it in the first place. In fact, with a few quick questions, I can get most people to admit that when they say they "love" their job, they actually mean that they "love it relative to other jobs" - HUGE difference in my book (it is like saying "I love the idea of dying in my sleep"). If "love" only exists relative to something terrible, I am not convinced it exists at all.

Our human traits are a product of natural selection, made for surviving and reproducing. If you are unable to survive very long and/or reproduce, now what? How similar are you to that worker ant who loses the queen? What should you do now? — Purple Pond

So, are you saying, what is the purpose of life? your post seems to suggest that reproducing is the meaning of life? You imply without it, what is the point. Many humans CHOOSE not to have children. Evolutionarily (is that a word, haha), those people (me) are unfit. But so what?

Those who view THEIR purpose in life as reproduction, would likely have a severe reaction to their inability to achieve their "purpose." They are also unlikely to view their inability to reproduce as their own fault. This could result in terrible consequences for society (at the very least we just have a higher percent of depressed people)

This seems a good reason NOT to convince people that reproduction is THE purpose. Although we are fighting centuries of religious arguments that emphasize making babies and working hard as the sole reasons for human existence.

It's survival of the fit, not the fittest. — Artemis

I like this. And human society has made it so that just about everyone "is fit" (those that wants to have kids, can - even those with severe disabilities). Now, many (most) will not get their first choice (if you can't be...with the one you love...love the one you're with), but IF their MAIN purpose is reproduction (not WHO they reproduce with), they can find someone.

I can see why they'd do that in Nebraska. Give them a year in college, y'know? — thewonder

Hahaha.

From what I know, in the States, you have to be 18 to marry unless you're in Nebraska where you have to be 19. — thewonder

Yes, you have to be 18 to marry, but there are huge loopholes, so that if certain criteria, including parental consent, are met, then 25 states actually have NO minimum age. You can find examples of 10, 11, and 12 year olds married within the last 20 years (no, it is not common, but still - check the wikipedia page for "child marriage in the united states" - egregious example, three 10 year old girls were married to men aged 24-31 in 2001).

but I honestly can't see how the fuss about it is motivated by anything other than that a person either is or knows some unscrupulous characters. — thewonder

I am guessing this will be a quiet thread as everyone will agree, but I suppose we will see.

This is false. No state allows 12 year olds to marry. — Hanover

You sure? How new are the laws? I can find 10 year olds married in 2001, and an 11 year old in 2006.
Again, wikipedia page is called, "child marriage in the united states".

I call it the "realism fetish" and I hate it.

The realism fetish has become more prominent in the last couple decades.

I'm a fan of fiction, of fantasy in its broadest sense. I want to see what people can imagine. If I want realism I can just walk outside and observe. — Terrapin Station

Dang, perfect. I have been saying this for years. How many grey area real life anti-heroes do I have to put up with?

I am not sure anyone has ever agreed with me. Good to know there are a few others out there (any top grossing movie list suggests we are not alone, but the oscars and emmys sure do disagree).

I honeslty suspect for the French petition to have been motivated by a persecution complex on the part of French intellectuals who were unwilling to deal with some of the more lecherous habits of their peers. — thewonder

After a quick read of the wikipedia page, I am not sure who is going to disagree with your assessment.

In America, one at least needs to get parental consent before marrying and raping 12 year olds :grimace:

If you do what you love, you'll never work a day in your life
— Marc Anthony — TheMadFool

One of my all time least favorite quotes :grimace: . My parents spewed that garbage from a young age, but even a few questions from a 16 year old (me) would cause them to him and haw about how much they loved working 55 hours a week, every week. As they are approaching retirement, and are looking forward to it, they are somewhat willing to admit they were wrong with that quote.

My quote would be, "if you think you love something, do it for 40+ hours a week for a few years, with a bit of pressure from other humans to do it well, and you won't love it anymore." (and that assumes a decent wage)

I would refer to all the incredible soccer talents that emerge every couple years (think of guys like Neymar or Mbappe in recent years), but ONLY Messi and Ronaldo have loved the game enough to practice all day every day for 10 years. Ronaldinho, Maradona, etc, were incredible talents, but they end up with a 2-3 year prime because partying is more fun than working (and their job is playing soccer!) - to be fair, Mbappe is very young and could still have a Ronaldo-esque career (he's no Messi though, haha), but I would bet against it.

So going back to the OP (which does make a funny equivocation between work and death) the phrase work-life balance is simply a response to the popular belief among baby-boomers that your work defines you and the more you work the better person you are. Not only are people rejecting that notion, but they are admitting that work is just what has to be done so we can enjoy the rest of life.

I think TheMadFool (you? - I sometimes am not sure if I am responding just to one person, or to the thread), has other good examples of the problems that lead to people's desire for a "work-life balance."

What do you think of my reply to Gnostic Christian Bishop? — TheMadFool

I think I approve. I am going to try to answer Gnostic Christian Bishop for you, and we will see if I have it correct.

God is not let off the hook if one believes in such an imaginary entity. He would have created evolution and would be culpable for that formula being good or evil. Most religious blame us while ignoring that we can only be and do what a god would have put into our natures. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I think it is largely your statement that basically said evil is not so bad. I think you mentioned that, without it, we would go extinct (paraphrasing, correct me where wrong). So it is actually NOT evil ("necessary evil" is a commonly used idiom, but upon reflection, it is a contradiction of definitions). Well if evil is NOT evil, then what evils are we blaming (or not) on god (imaginary or not)?

Most religious blame us while ignoring that we can only be and do what a god would have put into our natures. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Indeed they do. But again, if evil is not bad, but good, then what is there to "blame" on god? sounds like there is no problem (of evil) at all.

I hope you see (and are not too upset) that TheMadFool and I are picking on the minutia of your argument. I think overall, our positions are not too distant. But the more time I spend around philosophy, the more I can't help but pick on any minor contradictions that I see (I am not even saying the contradictions definitely exist, but they stand out to me).

Hey doc, sounds great. How long does the effect of a dose last? How many years can one stretch out the 100 doses? — Bitter Crank

Haha, yes for the cautious and meticulous person that enjoys the occasional head change, life just got better. Although not that amazing, the doses do not last more than a day (are there any drugs yet that noticeably last longer than that?) But yes, you could spread out the doses at will...but if you hit #100, you die.

We all admit that children can't be responsible for their decisions, what makes most adults any better?
— ZhouBoTong

I don't agree with the first part of that — Terrapin Station

Well, that answers that. This looks like another one of those cases where our worldviews are too different to expect reconciliation.

Why do you believe that you should be able to decide for others that they shouldn't be allowed to decide to risk and take their own lives this way? — Terrapin Station

Because I know, for sure, that huge numbers will die. Also, I don't believe in free will. So they weren't really "deciding for themselves"...they were pre-programmed to make certain decisions, and I would be wrong to exploit that.

Because I feel we probably hugely disagree, what percent of humans on the planet do you think would be dead within the next decade, assuming they all had access to this drug whenever they wanted it? (I know your answer to this does not affect your logic or your position in general, I am just interested) Like I said, I think half the planet would be dead.

Descartes' idea that being omnipotent involves being able to do anything at all.

Imagine a person who can do anything logically possible. Well, that person has a lot of power, to be sure. But they do not have as much as one who can also do the logically impossible. So I think true omnipotence involves the latter. — Bartricks

Yep, I agree. Everything else is changing the definition of omnipotent (adding "limits" to something that is, by definition, "unlimited").

But God cannot lie, because it goes against his nature. Therefore, that presents a contradiction. A similar example would be the logical possibility of making a mistake – God can’t do this either. — philorelkook

Ideas like this suggest that the "omnipotent" being under discussion has no will. Why can't an all-powerful being be wrong? Don't we need to include "all knowing" before that is an issue? Even all-knowing, couldn't it choose to be wrong?

Also when you mention "his nature" you are claiming much more knowledge of god than I think belongs in this discussion - I think many of the people involved in this thread are agnostic or atheist, and most religious people will disagree on god's "nature" (I am not saying you are wrong, just that what you are describing is a whole 'nother debate).

Also, isn't the concept of "omnipotence" in religion the result of the thousands of years of an arms race that claimed "my god is more powerful than yours"? Well if "your" god is limited by logic and having to tell the truth, then "my" god is more powerful.

Question: Can an omnipotent being create a stone which he cannot lift?
Answer: SORRY, CANNOT COMPUTE. THE PREMISE DOES NOT CONFORM TO VALID LOGICAL PARAMETERS. — BrianW

How exactly do you mean this? I view the idea of an omnipotent being as problematic, but if the premise starts with the omnipotent being existing, I don't see a problem with the rest?

This is like a modern twist on the Lysistrata. — StreetlightX

Hahaha, too bad the women caved once an initial peace occurred. A bit of determination in that direction could have changed the world.

Interesting idea, but I am not convinced of its purpose.

Wouldn't it be easier to just find a guy that does his share of the housework? Maybe one that doesn't want children to solve the pregnancy imbalance?

By the way, for the birthers, picking guys that do their share of the housework will likely result in a higher percent of babies born that grow up to be guys willing to do their share of the work.

3. Political lesbianism is a viable option for feminism. — Bridget Eagles

Surely any individual has the right to make this choice, but will it affect the "patriarchy" in any way if 8% (18%? 48%?) of women become political lesbians? Surely the biggest offending males (picture the current US president) will still attract most of the remaining females, right? So the system remains, just with a few more disgruntled beta males...some percent of which will unquestionably blame the current (hypothetical) trend of political lesbianism for their problems (even though they are wrong, it shows that your plan may actually increase the number of males that view females as inferior).

1. If feminist, heterosexual women should not make choices that put men in positions of power, then political lesbianism is a viable option for feminism.
2. Feminist, heterosexual women should not make choices that put men in positions of power.
3. Political lesbianism is a viable option for feminism. — Bridget Eagles

I think this approach is too much virtue ethics and not enough consequentialism. "Giving power to the patriarchy is wrong so one should never do that" seems to be your position, where I would be more concerned with "which actions lead to a more equal distribution of power?" and I don't see how your argument would help with that...but I am a novice around here so I could be missing something :smile:

I think Bitter Crank will better provide the facts of this particular case, but I just want to get at what I see as potential implications of your comments (which I am sure to have interpreted wrong, haha).

I'd have to read more about it, but what did Perdue Pharma do that should make them liable for anything? — Terrapin Station

If they did let physicians know it, then it would be up to physicians to inform their patients, and then it's up to the patients to take the risk or not. — Terrapin Station

But wouldn't it have been pretty soon apparent in the medical community that it's not less addictive? — Terrapin Station

A quick hypothetical, as I think I disagree with what you are getting at here:

Imagine that I created a drug, that made many people feel better than they have or believe they ever could in the future. The drug is extraordinarily addictive, but it only has 1 side effect - that being that on your 100th dose, you die...no way around it. Then, I marketed this as the most amazing drug ever, but filled it with bright warnings that said it is HUGELY addictive and IT WILL KILL YOU on your 100th dose. I made the warnings obvious and clear on any and all mentions of the product (in every conceivable language and mode of communication).

Are you saying WHEN millions of people die that I am in no way liable because they knew what they were getting into? We all admit that children can't be responsible for their decisions, what makes most adults any better? What is the line between a child's mind and an adult's? Is it an age? An education level? A genetic marker (I just include this to suggest that SOME children WILL make better decisions than adults)?

You have WAY more faith in people than I do (or maybe you just like the idea of thinning the herd, haha). I think the drug I described above would kill half the planet, QUICKLY (assuming they all had access to the drug). And if I profit massively from their deaths, even if I was honest about how I would do it, that seems a problem to me (notice I would still consider it a problem if I did not profit at all).

I think this all ties to me being largely a consequentialist. If thousands of people died, who would not have died if the drug companies were not producing massive amounts of unnecessary drugs, then the drug companies are responsible (that doesn't mean they are ENTIRELY responsible).

Sorry, I did delete some stuff, still too long :grimace:

How could an all-loving god allow the sadistically exquisite variety in means of death? — TheMadFool

Yes, assuming sufficient power and knowledge, this creates a serious problem for a loving god.

When misery / tragedy strikes, they argue that they deserve nothing better - this is what they truly always deserve. When they, on the other hand, manage to avoid negative events in their lives, it is always the result of God's "mercy". — Daniel C

Indeed, it is a constant admission of inferiority, and yet many of them seem to have a constant prideful moral superiority when they compare themselves to other humans...I am not sure they learned the lesson.

I think the POE and free will have more to do with Christianity. — TheMadFool

I thought that the problem only existed in relation to an ALL knowing, ALL powerful, and ALL good god. The POE is that it seems to make such a god impossible.

I never thought the POE was asking "why is there evil" which seems to be implied by some of the posts in this thread...I thought it raised the question of "why is there evil when there is an all good, all knowing, all powerful being out there?" If I am right (wikipedia agrees with me), then you are right to assume the POE applies more (only?) to the abrahamic religions (with even Judaism being questionable).

So yes, I think we are farther away from substantial reform now than we were during Nixon's administration. — Bitter Crank

That is the feeling I have been getting. Despite all the people 'feeling the Bern', It seems that people (like me) are unwilling to sacrifice convenience...so major change is unlikely.

Conservatives were unhappy about Social Security, Unemployment, and Disability programs (1930s), and challenged the programs in court. — Bitter Crank

Indeed, they still seem to oppose any measures designed to stop people from dying in the gutters, along with any sentiments that suggest they had help in becoming the "incredible" people that they are.

However, the US isn't alone in all this. I think a lot of people in other countries have also had very disappointing experiences in the last 50 years. The US isn't an exception to the rest of the world. — Bitter Crank

Do you believe that massive political change is possible? The older I get, the more I worry that massive political change would require such a huge change in worldview for most people, that they are unwilling to even consider the possibility. Am I just seeing the result of the last 40+ years of "individualism good, government bad"? It feels like more than that, but maybe I am a product of the last 40 years. Individualism seems like free will in that it automatically seems true until you do research...and MOST humans are generally opposed to 'doing research', unless it is about their favorite celebrity couple.

1. If moral values are my values, then if I value something necessarily it is morally valuable. — Bartricks

Has ANYONE conceded this premise yet? It seems that so far, everyone but you has some problem with this premise.

And you realize you - you - just insulted me, yes? — Bartricks

I am not convinced that I did anything but state fact...do you mean this:

I just didn't want you to get too discouraged by the infinite loop of assertions and insults, hidden beneath the occasionally decent argument, that is bartricks. — ZhouBoTong

Are you saying that you don't make the occasional good argument?

Are you saying if I go back through this thread and read your posts I won't find assertions and insults along with a couple decent arguments?

What I am asking you is very simple. If you were to draw a Venn Diagram of these two sets of things, would they be disjoint, would they overlap somewhat (some items are in both sets, some are only in one or the other), or would they be identical? — EricH

You seem pretty unflappable, but I just wanted to confirm that what you are saying should make sense to most people. I just didn't want you to get too discouraged by the infinite loop of assertions and insults, hidden beneath the occasionally decent argument, that is bartricks.

Adequate restorative justice for so much death and damage is difficult to imagine. — Bitter Crank

I would be happy (well short-term satisfied anyway) if new rules are put in place that change things going forward...even if there is no (or little) attempt at restoration. But as you have said,

It will probably take a civil war to get from "for profit production" to "for need production". — Bitter Crank

, which is likely a big part of the "rules" I am referring to.

I think a lot of the problems you are describing are bigger than just the resistance to socialism that exists in the US (I am not trying to suggest you were not aware of this). Far more socialist-leaning countries in Europe are still going to have LLCs, and just people in general looking to exploit any legal loophole in search of profit...but I feel they are closer to a "tipping point" (they certainly seem much more on board with collectivism in general). However, my perspective is limited. You have a few more years on the planet than I, so here is a question (or 3):

Relative to other times in your life, are we closer or farther today from the types of massive changes it seems we both would approve of? My understanding of US history at least suggests communism was more popular in the first half of the 1900s. And most people at the time certainly seemed to approve of FDRs massive expansion of the role of government. I believe that unions were strong and a positive force until Reagan...does that seem right? But I feel like from Reagan/Thatcher until rather recently, things were heading in the opposite direction with corporations and individualism being the dominant forces (for dems and repubs). Today, we get a lot lip service on 'socialism', but do you actually feel that progress is being made?

I guess if the changes I hope for require Civil War, then that suggests we are no closer or further than ever, as very few people will feel Civil War is a good solution. Do you think there are other countries that can make these changes without Civil War? Or has globalism created an all or none environment?

The point of severe retributive justice is to insure that a person committing a capital crime doesn't, and can't, re-offend. — Bitter Crank

uh oh, I don't understand all types of justice, but I thought I knew retributive. I thought it was JUST about making the violator suffer...like hell. I thought the prevention of future offenses was a different type of justice (is that even still under the realm of 'justice'?).

For a corporation severe retributive punishment serves the same purpose: to make sure that agents who operated the corporation can not again engage in conspiracies which caused great harm to large numbers of people. — Bitter Crank

Yes, besides my understanding (misunderstanding?) of 'retributive', this is what I want to be the result.

One of the teams prosecuting Purdue said that it was essential that the Purdue company be dissolved and the Sackler Family stripped of its wealth. The reason, he said, is that we need to make sure that Purdue and the Sacklers don't just move their operation overseas and continue to do to people in the third world what they have done to people in the United States. — Bitter Crank

I worry that there is a LOT they can do besides continuing to profit from dangerous prescription drugs, that could cause harm to others. They have demonstrated that they will blatantly place profits over the well-being of their fellow humans, so they should no longer be allowed to 'make profits'. I may allow them to play in the stock market a little, but even there I am not sure. And yes, I am aware that this line of thinking would implicate MANY people in our capitalist society. However, the punishment should match the degree of the misbehavior, so a car salesman that gets some 'sucker' to pay $3,000 for 'undercoating' would just be fined (yes, I get I am describing some outlandishly different society, but I am just trying to see where the ideas are wrong or unfair...you have had success in the past at talking me out of my authoritative leanings).

The Sacklers / Purdue conducted a particularly cynical operation--NOT in the production of opiates, but in the marketing, promotion, and distribution of Opiates. — Bitter Crank

And this is part of why they are MORE responsible in my eyes. I even remember the way they tried to categorize their 'customers' as dangerous addicts to avoid any responsibility for their addiction.

Sure enough: some "pain clinics" were producing an extraordinary volume of opiate sales. — Bitter Crank

Yes, I remember individual doctors prescribing individual patients ridiculously high doses (like 20 pills a day or something...unfortunately I think I learned the most on this topic from "The Daily Show', which suggests the depth of my knowledge is rather limited).

Above board doctors do not normally over-supply patients with opiates, for several reasons. One is that opiates may be used for suicide. Two, the opiates are easy to sell on the street. Three is that patients who take opiates for an extended period of time (needed or not) are likely to be addicted. Fourth, and not the least reason, is for recklessly handing out narcotic Rx a doctor may lose his license to practice.

A fair amount of corruption has to be in place for the drug producer, distributor, clinic, doctor, and druggist to be able to move very large quantities of narcotic drugs. We can rest assured that where opiate overdoses are resulting in sharp increases in ODs, the problem is stacked up several layers deep. — Bitter Crank

Your knowledge on this subject clearly beats mine, but everything you are saying is in line with my frustration. I am very interested in your direct response to 'ideally, what would be the punishment for this crime?' In using the word 'ideally' I do not expect an immediately practical solution (for example, when it comes to gun control, 'ideally' 99% of the 300,000,000 guns in this county would be confiscated and destroyed...but, practically, I am not convinced it would be worth the Civil War that would inevitably erupt (in the US)).

Thanks! It's even adaptable to your favorite interpretation:

Pilot wave theory: An invisible river guides the boat.

Many Worlds: There is a boat on each fork of the river.

Copenhagen: There is no river until you launch the boat.

RQM: In your reference frame there is a boat on the river.

QBism: You should believe there is a boat on the river.

Consciousness causes collapse: Your mind creates the river. And the boat.

Instrumentalism: We don't talk about the river. — Andrew M

Yep, the great analogy continues. It is like listening to Michio Kaku, I usually feel like his topics of discussion are beyond me, but his explanations allow me to at least feel like I understand.

I think I know the answer to 3017amen's question, but I am far more interested in your answer :grin:

So are insurance companies. So are distributors. They too should be subject to punishment. — Bitter Crank

Yep, entirely agreed. FOR ME, anyone that can be shown to be part of the cause, are in some way responsible, and should be punished in some way (a fine that is less than money earned is no punishment at all, it is a type of reward). Now, I can admit that many (certainly not all) of those involved may not have known about the harms (although like you said, doctors obviously knew better) they were causing. So, they should be punished LESS, but still punished (and by punished, I simply mean "deterred from similarly harming others in the future" - if we want to lock all the rich people in their mansions, I am fine with that as long as they are no longer allowed to interact with the rest of us - for any not super-rich doctors, they could just be no longer allowed to practice medicine).

Most people who have taken opioids for pain have not experienced such a pleasant effect from the drugs that they return for more, again and again. They stop taking the drugs as soon as pain diminishes. There is a subset of people for whom opioids (and maybe other drugs like nicotine, alcohol...) produce pleasures which they can not resist. They are dead-ringers for addiction. This is not a recently discovered phenomenon. — Bitter Crank

This all seems reasonable (I guess that is a given from BitterCrank), but I can't tell what exactly your position is (possibly because I did not make the OP clear enough). Is it all just too complicated to say "those responsible should be punished"? If we can say they should be punished, what should the punishment be?

When you mentioned Nuremberg, I heard 'crimes against humanity'. — JosephS

OK, now I am getting how I implied that. Yes, I can understand that interpretation. I was really just referring to the way a whole bunch of Nazis, holding differing positions, were tried and different punishments were given based on the determined level of responsibility.

Did Nazi Germany sign onto any treaties that would have supported the sort of penalties they faced? — JosephS

Ok, so here is where I will argue they were under a social contract of sorts. After WW1, the Geneva Convention was created (established? passed? ratified? - too lazy to google). About the same time a declarations of the rights of man was added to a type of international law. Now, I have never signed anything saying I will not steal and murder, but social contract suggests I am still subject to those laws. In the same way, whether or not the Nazis acknowledged and signed onto the Geneva Convention and international law, the mere fact of their existence would suggest a type of social contract.

I was hoping that this was going to be a proposal on how we could augment/modify our ex post facto jurisprudence in the wake of monstrous harm. — JosephS

I would be somewhat interested in this discussion, but I am not totally convinced that new laws were needed to convict the Nazis or Purdue Pharma. If the Geneva Convention covers the treatment of POWs, then it should cover the people killed during the holocaust. Surely genocide is a one sided war (in fact, "one sided war" seems like "ethnic cleansing" in that it is too nice of a term for "genocide")? Were the Jews "the enemy" or German citizens? In the Germans own words they were defined as the enemy, so the Geneva convention should apply. Just because they never fought back, doesn't change the fact that they were in a war. Obviously, this is just one way of interpreting things. But I similarly think murder/assault laws could be interpreted in a way that they apply to Purdue. If it is murder for a person to slowly poison their spouse to death over several years, then why can't that same interpretation of the law be applied to Purdue? I think it would be more a matter of setting precedent, vs actually needing new laws.

As your legal understanding of things seems a good deal ahead of mine, I am interested to hear where this seems wrong to you (or maybe you can point to something that show it unquestionably wrong :grimace:).

And I am happy to engage with the discussion you were hoping to have...but I may not make a great foil (you will certainly have to take the lead). I have a decent grasp of history, but much less so with the law.

When clicking the link, it said "page unavailable". As that seems important to the discussion, I will wait a while and see if you can make it work before responding.

As a thought exercise, what bounds might cordon these retroactive applications of law? — JosephS

Ooops, I must have communicated poorly...I agree there should NOT be retroactive applications of law. My post was supposed to be less about how are we going to punish Purdue than it is about fixing the laws for future scenarios.

And overall it is far less about the laws that ARE, it is discussing what the laws should be (or at least that is what I had in mind).

Thanks for helping me clarify :smile:

For one possible physical picture, consider a river that forks around an island. You could represent the river symbolically as:

River = left fork + right fork — Andrew M

I don't know enough about QM to know if you are right with this analogy, BUT I SURE HOPE YOU ARE :smile: This seems a great analogy that does help even idiots like me to understand.

No; this is the very same thread, just in a different place.... — Banno

Dang, you nailed that one. :rofl:

A couple big problems with it:

* Agnosticism isn't a stance about proof.
* It seems to conflate knowledge and proof.
* It seems ignorant of the fact that empirical claims aren't provable. — Terrapin Station

I am very confused here. So what if there is no proof? I don't know if there is a god and view the answer to a nonsense question as unanswerable. However, I don't think there is one, based on all the descriptions I have heard so far. That doesn't make me an agnostic atheist? Then what am I? And why is that a better description of my beliefs on god(s)?

Or were you really just correcting his use of the word 'proof'?

Agnostic atheism is a term given to agnostic atheists by people outside the group who noticed that the group claim to be agnostics but live their lives as atheists. — TheMadFool

Interesting. I do tend to call those agnostics 'agnostic atheists' but I gave myself the label as well. I am a stickler for definitions and I see no way around it.

My point is that, as long as there are "things" to learn and do they must be Finite and if you have an infinite amount of time it is categorical that you run out of things, so the only way to not face that problem is to have an infinite capacity and that would make you God. — Filipe

I can solve this problem...when did your brain become perfect? What I mean is, do you remember 100% of what you have learned forever? Or do we only remember a tiny percentage of our experiences, and as time passes, those memories weaken without reinforcement. In an infinite amount of time I would learn AND forget an infinite amount of information (with what is know just slightly outnumbering what has been forgotten). So you would need to be eternal and half-machine to really have this problem...the human species along with technology seems hypothetically capable of complete knowledge (however unlikely), but any individual homo sapien need not worry as we are entirely INCAPABLE of storing that much info.

@TheMadFool@Fernando Rios

Sorry, I missed a whole page of responses before posting above. Ignore my oversimplified summary if you have already received better answers.

The problem for the OP is how an instrument that is Newtonian can ever prove that some other event is NOT Newtonian in nature. — TheMadFool

I would like to know how can you prove these laws, but not using devices that use the the same laws. — Fernando Rios

If we know the devices (rulers, scales, telescope, etc) existed before Newton, and therefor before Newton's laws, what were the devices measuring? (so the device itself is not 'Newtonian', it existed before Newton!) Newton's laws described what the devices were measuring (predicted outcomes of measurements), more accurately than previous models.

I think you are putting the cart before the horse. Newton's laws are based on the measurements of those devices, not the other way around.

Also, Newton's Laws are not accepted as perfect in science. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics have introduced aspects to physics that are not in line with Newton's laws or pick up where Newton's laws stop working (as far as they can tell so far).

We don't have God but we do have a most effective substitute - the CCTV camera. — TheMadFool

Once computer programs can monitor the cameras, it makes sense. In the meantime, who watches the people watching the cameras?

Can't we just invent some fake panopticon in the sky (maybe 2? that big yellow one (day), and the big white one (night)) that whips your ancestors every time you do wrong? Maybe we should keep 'god' around for awhile to keep the riff-raff in line?

While you may be onto something related to keeping people in line, that would not work to further develop human morality. If you ever had to learn stages of development (piaget, ericson, kohlberg, etc - I think kohlberg was specifically moral development), the panopticon would perpetuate lower level ethical development (it keeps the good boys/good girls and deontologists in line). But true moral development would be "good for the sake of good", not "because I might get caught"....right?

Ever heard of the Age of Enlightenment? — Artemis

In the age of Enlightenment, "enlightenment" is no more than humanism right? The idea that humans can use their brains to solve problems? I can see how some of the times you used it, this version of enlightenment could be applied. But that type of enlightenment is not some destination to be reached, which was strongly implied through much of our discussion on the subject.

See this sort of contradicts your other statement suggesting morality is a "subjective opinion." What is it now? Is the Holocaust actually bad or is that just your "opinion"? — Artemis

It is my opinion. It also happens to be the opinion of MOST people. But "objective" morality doesn't really make sense. What makes it objective? Don't like half of all philosophy people view morality as largely subjective? I am not saying I am right, but it doesn't seem that outlandish?

Here's the real problem with moral relativism (the idea that morality is just "opinions") — Artemis

I would put a rather LARGE gap between "all morals are subjective" and "moral relativism". Moral relativism pushes the idea that I CANNOT judge another person's morals because it is all just relative to their situation. On the other hand, I feel comfortable judging other people's morals (at least to some extent) based on my subjective opinion (which may be based on certain objective facts). I think one can be a moral subjectivist without being a moral relativist (@Terrapin Station, does that seem right to you? Artemis, I included Terrapin because he seems to be the ultimate subjectivist around here, so if he disagrees, I should - but might not, haha - accept I am wrong on subjectivism vs relativism).