Life, as we would define it, didn't begin in this part of this galaxy until:

a) enough supernovae had produced enough of the heavier elements all the way up to gold and uranium
b) this elemental dust started to accumulate in the vicinity of what would one day become our solar system
c) the dust formed a disk, and the disk began to get lumpy, and the lumps started forming our star and planets
d) the planets formed spheres, the sun ignited
e) debris (heavy lumps of matter congealed in the disk) began to be attracted to the heavy planets and collided with them, heating the planets, and adding more matter (like water)
f) cycles of collision, heating, additions of matter including water, cooling, eventually produced some planets that were wet and reasonably cool.
g) geological processes kept the early planets (like earth) in physical turmoil for quite a long time — The Ancient Crank

This all took... billions of years before the environment on earth was stable enough for anything like even an inanimate large complicated molecule to survive. The large complicated molecules were not life.

At some point -- we don't know when, we don't know how, we don't know where on earth, inanimate matter came together, somehow, and through unknown steps, became "capable of duplicating itself". Life was created.

It may have been in a cool mud hole; it may have been in a hot under-sea vent. We don't know. We do know that the early life forms existed in a reasonably stable environment that we would find utterly intolerable. But, as it happened, the early life transformed the atmosphere by throwing off large amounts of a very poisonous gas--oxygen. New forms of life evolved that could use oxygen. We eventually evolved from organisms that could utilize oxygen and expelled carbon dioxide.

And in the fullness of time, it came to pass that we are here, wondering how the hell we got here.

"Life" may have begun in other places before and after life formed in this spot. It's entirely possible, and very difficulty to investigate because everything in the universe is very far apart.

The ideas of the ideology didn't suddenly appear out of nowhere: they have a history — jkop

This is true. For instance, National Socialist ideas had a history. Eugenics, for example, wasn't invented solely in Nazi Germany. The US and UK both had a eugenics movement which was a part of the progressive platform. Antisemitism, of course, wasn't invented by Hitler (but it was implemented with a hitherto unprecedented severity and extremity). Hitler wasn't the first ruler to think of expanding territory at his neighbors expense.

On a Marxist note, 20th century fascism was implemented using the means of production at hand--electronic communication, industrialized production, and much improved data processing facilities (like Hollerith punch cards and fast punch card readers and sorters). In an earlier time it would have been far more difficult and time consuming for fascism to organize itself. Germany and Italy got their fascist act together with stunning rapidity.

Does God have many worlds to tend, and do they all have conversations like these?

I believe it was one of your early ancestors that got his big start in the Nile.

Does anyone actually bathe in a bath house? — Hanover

Indeed, they bathe in bath houses because cleanliness is next to godliness, and if you should find yourself in close proximity to a sex god, you would want to look and smell your best.

The People here may not know that bath houses used to be a common facility in the urban United States, prior to the epidemic of indoor plumbing, private showers, and water heaters which made them unnecessary. People would go to the local bath house (probably once a week) for the purpose of a thorough scrubbing, soak, and rinse. These were not 'turkish baths' which featured pools with different temperatures, heated marble massage tables, food service, steam rooms, etc. Turkish baths were upscale. Ordinary folk went to down market municipal bath houses which offered tubs and showers.

Many turkish baths became gay baths in the 1950s and 60s.

Once upon a time in America, country people took their once a week bath on Saturday night, quite often in the kitchen in a laundry tub.

Bear in mind that the balanced budget obsession is, in part, code for shafting the least powerful population--a population conservatives have never had much affection for. It is not code for cutting defense spending or raising taxes on the rich.

If we were to enforce a balanced Federal budget through a constitutional amendment with no way out, it would mean not just metaphoric starvation, but likely real starvation for some people. It would be an economic disaster for the country as a whole, and would probably trigger a global economic recession. Never mind paying off the National Debut of $13.62 trillion.

It is unlikely that enough states would ratify the amendment. If they did ratify it, and it were seriously enforced, I predict a severe social reaction would be ignited, which would result in a repeal.

In my opinion, the federal budget should, over time, be put in balance. The national debt should, over time, be reduced. Private (personal) debt should also be reduced over time. All of this debt reduction and budget balancing would require very committed thrift and a major extraction of wealth from the richest segments of the population. My call for a balanced budget is code for reduced defense expenditure, increased taxation on the rich, and a major shift in spending priorities. (Is my coded proposal likely? Sadly, no.)

State legislatures initiate constitutional conventions. Conservatives have control over (possibly) enough of these bodies to make such a call in the near future. The unifying issue for conservatives is the "balanced budget amendment". "Balanced budget" is a loaded term. It has great appeal to a lot of people (apparently).

For many people, "balanced budget" is code for "reduce federal social spending': medicaid, welfare, education, medicare, unemployment insurance, social security, etc. Balancing the budget is NOT code for reducing defense spending or greatly increasing the level of taxation on wealthy people (the top 10%, particularly the top 1%. It's code for anything but that.

You know, prior to 1920, government was financed through excise taxes on alcohol, tariffs on imports, and the like. The income tax was passed in preparation for prohibition, which would end that source of tax revenue. Obviously, the scope of government activity was much smaller then. Paleo-conservatives want to devolve the federal budget to spending levels not seen in a century.

World War II created a huge debt which was, eventually, paid off (around 1970, if I remember correctly). Vietnam together with an expansion in social spending (Medicare, medicaid, Great Society programs) greatly increased federal indebtedness. Before that had been paid off, Reagan's and Bush I's military programs (like Star Wars) greatly increased debt again. After Star Wars, it was Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Great Recession which jacked up federal spending to the current very high debt levels.

The chart below depicts discretionary spending. Debt service and social security are not included (because they are mandatory spending items).



The second pie chart shows how mandatory spending is distributed.



Military spending though, isn't blamed, usually. It's Social Security, Medicaid, and the like which are blamed. Exactly what share military, social spending, and debt service (plus everything else) have can be manipulated by including mandatory spending, or just talking about discretionary spending.

The fact is, though, that past and current military spending, and debt service on that spending, accounts for a huge chunk of the budget.

"Nazi" is short for "National Socialist' (Nationalsozialismus). There were, initially, some socialist features in the Nazi program,, but they were fairly rapidly lost.

"Socialism" used properly is a form of economic democracy. The workers -- the great majority of the people -- run the economy. Can democracy be carried too far? I suppose it can; then one would end up with a kind of anarchic society. That might work on a small scale, for hundreds of people. Millions? probably not.

The Nazi state intended to take care of the general population, and initially it was able to improve the quality of life of Germans (the good, pure Germans, anyway). Once full scale war got under way, however, the needs of the military took precedence over everything else. The daily calorie quota of the typical German was reduced. Initially the reduction was noticeable, but as the war ground on, the reduction became more severe.

"Fascism" isn't ancient. It was invented in Italy in the early part of the 20th Century. Hitler "co-discovered" fascism along with Mussolini. The Nazis didn't "pervert" fascism, they were practicing it. However, genocide is not an essential feature of fascism.

My understanding is that the trains didn't run any more 'on time' in Italy when Mussolini was in power than when he wasn't in power.

If by fascism you mean authoritarian government operating a command economy, it doesn't appear that the fascist economy is far more productive than any other, and maybe less so. Authoritarian governments do tend to get their way within their own borders, and if their objectives have any merit, they tend to be achieved. But at what cost? Mussolini carried out a fairly extensive urban renewal project in Rome (employing some early midcentury modern style) which was fairly good, by standards of the day.

What is wrong with fascism is that it is authoritarian, dictatorial, intensely nationalistic (or ethnically focused) and militaristic. Pig-headed, in other words. It tends to create the social circumstances that encourage authoritarian, violent behavior among followers. It tends to idolize the strong male figure in the form of a ruling general.

Ratify what exactly? — Mongrel

Whatever amendments a constitutional convention passed on to the states. (The convention itself has no power to effect the amendments. The states have to approve them.

Normally, constitutional amendments go through congress to the states, with 3/4 approval needed. The present constitution allows for the states to bypass congress by calling a convention. (So far, this has not been done.)

You have excellent health and excellent health maintenance habits. Good for you. Keep up the good work.

Unfortunately, you good physical condition doesn't make you immune to infectious diseases. You might survive them better than somebody who smokes, drinks, is obese, and eats a steady diet of chips and hot dogs, but good health habits doesn't produce immunity to killer influenza, or some other infection.

Maybe you've been healthy because your parents sensibly got you immunized when you were a child. Maybe your parents arranged for a dentist to remove your wisdom teeth rather than just letting them rot out. Did they have health insurance which covered you?

The best health habits in the world won't prevent your injury if some drunk runs over you. Let's say you survive -- you'll still need extensive medical care.

I'll grant you this: You might make it all the way to the grave at an advanced age without getting sick or getting injured. (In which case, you'll be dying of a heart attack or stroke.) It does happen. But it doesn't happen to most people--and it never has happened to most people--even the ones who didn't smoke, drink, eat poorly, and so on.

NEXT

Nope. We just need the free market in health care. — Thorongil

A real "free" market in health care would be like the free market in anything else: If you can't afford it, you are shit out of luck.

If you can't afford to buy gold, or trips to Thailand, or high end sports cars -- whatever it is you decide to buy -- your suffering is entirely private and doesn't affect anyone else.

Disease and injury, however, do affect other people and sometimes very quickly.

Treating infectious disease, for instance, limits the spread of the disease. A guy who gets syphilis or gonorrhea and doesn't get it treated can infect a lot of other people (and gonorrhea, in particular, is becoming much more difficult to cure). Someone with TB can infect other people without having sex with them. Just hanging around the same people is sufficient. Yellow fever, hepatitis, Zika Virus, West Nile Virus, various tick-born diseases, mumps, measles, chickenpox, whooping cough, and so on have been suppressed because people availed themselves of health care.

A free market in health care with freely spreading diseases isn't much of a bargain.

Did all of those people need to have it? Why must health insurance be essentially forced on people? — Thorongil

They may not have wanted health insurance. Perhaps they thought they were invincible. They may have thought they did not need insurance. Actuaries know better.

Quite likely, they just plain couldn't afford insurance.

Sooner or later, most people get seriously ill or have serious accidents. The quite sick and seriously injured will ask for care which they will not be able to pay for -- it just costs too much. Care will not be denied. Rather than the cost of care being distributed over everyone in a large group, it will fall entirely on the hospital to cover.

Further, people who think they need no insurance are also likely to think they need do nothing to prevent disease or injury, and thus arrive at the ER in worse shape than if they had received vaccinations, preventive care, or early treatment--all of which is cheaper and easier than curing advanced disease. Poor people, of course, can't afford these early interventions, or late ones.

If hermits want to go deep into the outback and get sick and die there, fine. But that is not what most people do.

scare-mongering founded entirely on the unwillingness of the wealthy to provide public benefits. Their attitude was, it's not 'the American way' to rely on the public purse for anything, — Wayfarer

The wealthy have a long history of objection to all of the 20th century efforts in the US to create a semi-adequate social welfare program--one that some European countries had had for quite some time.

The wealthy objected to Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Disability Insurance, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, and various other programs that were designed to enhance or preserve the quality of life (like the EPA).

Charm School has taught the rich not to sound like Ebenezer Scrooge, but that doesn't mean they don't share his views:

Many thousands are in want of common necessaries; hundreds of thousands are in want of common comforts, sir."
"Are there no prisons?"
"Plenty of prisons..."
"And the Union workhouses." demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"
"Both very busy, sir..."
"Those who are badly off must go there."
"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."
"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population."

The GOP campaign against the Affordable Health Care Act was always a disgraceful piece of scare-mongering founded entirely on the unwillingness of the wealthy to provide public benefits
— Wayfarer

Not really. You're generalizing here.

The ACA was derided as 'socialised medicine' for that reason alone, and subjected to the most egregious campaigns of lies, obstructionism and distortion.
— Wayfarer

They predicted it would be a failure and do the opposite of what it intended, which, lo and behold, has come to pass. I really could give less of a crap about the supposed good intentions of the bill's drafters. — Thorongil

The ACA attempted to several things: end pre-existing conditions as a bar to health insurance; allow young people to maintain health care coverage for 3 or 4 years after college (until they get a job where they can pay their own way, or receive coverage as a benefit; reduce the number of people without any health care insurance; increase hospital income where emergency rooms supply primary care, and some other points.

The ACA did achieve these things. Was it perfect? Not at all, but it did extend health care to more people who otherwise didn't have it. Did it rein in costs? No, and unless congress eliminates rules of the sort that prevent the government from negotiating pharmacy prices, it won't. It can't.

Single payer with teeth. That's what we need.

The Kochs are involved in a credible orchestrated move to change the constitution, which stands a pretty good chance of succeeding. — unenlightened

They're explicit about the amendment they want to add. The article suggesting that, once a convention is convened, more amendments (read: "scary corporatist ones") will be added is pure fear mongering and baseless speculation. — Thorongil

It isn't baseless. If a constitutional convention is called for by 2/3 of the states, it would meet, establish operating rules, and then would proceed to do whatever it wanted with respect to amendments. Having written one or several amendments, it would send the amendments to the 50 states, 75% of which would have to ratify them.

How likely is it that 3/4 of the states would ratify?

“There’s no controversial idea on the left or the right that won’t have 13 states against it.” (article in the NYT, 8/22/16)

Could be. Don't know. But it's possible.

Conservatives have been diligently at work doing what any political group should do -- strengthen its grip on the political apparatus of the state. The only reason for discussing a constitutional convention is that enough state legislatures are in the hands of Republicans to get quite close to being able to call for a constitutional convention. They may make it.

The convention itself might be bad, and it is quite possible that the political turmoil stirred up would be worse. Much worse.

Do you want God to exist? — TheMadFool

Yes, I want God to exist, but with a lot of ambivalence about which God. The omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-everything-else God? God without one, two, three, or more omni-features? God the Son? A suffering God? A questing God? God coterminous with the universe, or a limited God? A powerless God? God the Holy Ghost? God who exists in all things or a God who doesn't exist in all things? Like that supernova over there?

The God I find most believable is the one who is not all-controlling, everywhere, all the time; the God that is appalled by our appalling actions, but does not -- may not be able to -- intervene; the God who may, perhaps, perceive us, but is not--perhaps can not--be perceived. God as witness, not God as the ultimate actor. I prefer a God without Heaven in which to reside--a perpetually itinerate God; homeless, as it were.

All this is, of course, in reaction to the hyper-active God I was introduced to a long time ago, and took as granted for quite a long time--like most people do. The God who was/is infinitely opinionated, extremely judgmental, has no boundaries, no limitations, and no ambiguity. The God who is involved in absolutely everything all the time everywhere. The Great and Powerful Oz God. Immortal, Invincible, First and and Last Mover, etc.

It IS an irritating term, though it's more mystical than intellectual property rights, though that does tie in.

The public domain is the public well, and once it's there, it's available. (I'm using public domain as just "the public" rather than 'expired copyright'.)

I can understand people wanting to tell their own story. The Till family might legitimately feel that their story was ripped off by a movie studio, for instance, or a novelist. Especially if their experience was really distorted.

Anything that resonates is likely to get picked up and passed around. A lot of gay stuff was picked up in the 80s, for instance, 'pink triangles'. [Variously colored triangles were used in the Nazi work and death camps to identify groups--Jews (yellow) , common criminals (black), communists (red), Christian objectors (purple) , homosexuals (pink), Gypsies (brown), and so on.] Some Jewish groups objected to gays using pink triangles because they thought it infringed on their holocaust experience. Some gay people objected to straights using pick triangles because they thought it infringed on their experience of oppression.

There is a large net benefit to cultural appropriation: It's the means by which cultural innovation spreads. The blues, or Jazz, didn't remain a piece of black subculture because it was appropriated by white people. White people didn't "take it away from blacks" of course, and white artists didn't take anything away from black artists in the Till situation.

I checked yes when I meant to check no when I couldn't decide whether I wanted god to exist or not. Unfortunately you didn't provide an "I can't figure it out" option.

God, whether He exists or not, is an all-pervasive influence in our lives. — TheMadFool

Because, as you are no doubt aware, religionists keep bringing God up to back up whatever views they have with respect to some particular "domain of human experience". We might want god to exist (in whatever form we like) but, as far as we can tell, he does not exist.

Since God doesn't exist, and therefore plays no real role, his influence remains very plastic -- god can be shaped to any form needed--hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin.

Humans are the creators of the gods. Our gods have been given the necessary characteristics which keep them from showing up at inconvenient times in incontrovertible physical form to intervene in our wretched affairs. Like, they never show their face. They never come and chat with us face to face. They don't send e-mails. It is necessary for priests to interpret them (because otherwise, the gods would be complete non-entities.

We want god around to back us up. So, come on god, I need support on global warming, pollution, plastic in the oceans, over population, and the anti-religion program. I'd also like you to do away with postmodernists. I'm sure you'll get right on it.

Well look, that is the kind of reductionism that gets into books and this forum. If you were thinking of something else, then give us a good clear example of it.

People don't like reductionism (or more to the point, what they think reductionism is) because it seems like it diminishes their humanity in some way. "Oh, you know, the reason you love your baby is because your brain produces oxytocin which binds you to your baby. It's just chemicals." That last statement is bogus, but that's what some people think.

They suppose that because the brain employs neurotransmitters to communicate within itself and within the body, that everything is just chemicals. Not so. The real experience comes first, along with real perception, and real registration.

So, the baby is handed to the mother (who has already gone through the major experience of birth). She experiences the face, heft, warmth, and scent of the newborn, and the sensation of the infant at her breast. This experience is what causes the brain to add a couple of oxytocin drops to the mix -- so that the feeling of love and devotion and attachment to her baby will be fully experienced and fixed in place.

You can show somebody a new clothes dryer and squirt a bit of oxytocin up their nose at the same time, but they won't fall in love with the dryer. (Well, normally they don't.) Men have been known to fall in love with a new car. Maybe there's oxytocin in the new car smell.

It's the snake that scares you, not the adrenalin. The adrenalin is there to make sure you get away from the snake really quickly (or pick it up with your bare hands and bite its head off before it bites you).

Appropriating culture is one thing, but then performing it the way he does is enough to start a civil war. Great fingers, great lyrics, awful voice.

Some of the ways one accommodates people who come from societies unfriendly to secular, liberal culture:

Along with everyone else,

1. Their children are required to go to public school and receive 12 years of training in the secular, liberal language, history, science, and civic institutions of the society.
2. Their young adults are liable for military service (unless physically unable)
3. Children, youth and adults may not impose their dietary restrictions on public kitchens
4. Children, youth, and adults may not engage in group religious rituals or wear specific religious clothing in public places (like schools, public institutions, public transit, etc.)
5. Standards accepted by the larger society in the area of dress or undress may not be challenged on a religious or specific basis. Don't like 95% of a body's skin exposed at beaches? Don't go there, then. Don't accept men and women sitting in the same whirlpool at the Y? Don't sit in the whirlpool, then.
6. Religious institutions (of all denominations) must fit into the surrounding community with respect to architectural styles, noise, outdoor events, and so on. Can the Holy Rollers open the windows and doors for their all night soul jam with highly amplified music and associated screaming? No. Can mosques broadcast the call to prayer 5 times a day hearable beyond 500 feet? No. Can a 4-spired big-domed box be built in an area with colonial era architecture? No.
7. Employees of private firms can not claim exemption from contact with unclean or holy meat. We eat pork and we kill sacred cows. Don't like it? Tough.
8. Apply anti-discrimination law (on the basis of gender) where applicable.
9. Expose everyone to non-stop commercial messaging about products, consumerism, pornography, etc.

These are not altogether new issues. Orthodox and ultra-orthodox Jews, Amish, Christian Scientists, Hutterites, Mennonites, Quakers, Jehovah Witnesses, and atheists have all contended with civil authorities to work out the details. Peace church members, for instance, may not have to undergo combat training and service when drafted, but they have to spend 2 years doing demanding public service work. Amish children do not attend high school in some states beyond the 8th grade. Amish travelers have to abide by rules of the road when moving about in horse-drawn vehicles (signaling, using large reflective triangles, even lights on their carriages and wagons.

Catholics and Lutherans may run their own elementary and secondary schools, but they are obligated to conform to the state mandated curriculum guidelines. (Of course, when the state itself is ready to approve creationism, then what?)

As painful and difficult as it has been (the suffering is incalculable) Americans, for instances, have learned to live with the weird clothing of ultra-orthodox Jews, Traditional Amish, Hari-Krishna pan handlers and flower children (a couple of generations back) and so on. Americans have somehow learned to eat Lebanese, Greek, African, Vietnamese, and South American food. (The only kind of ethnic food restaurants missing in Minnesota are Norwegian, German, and Swedish. Strange. You would think in a place that is 60% NW European, there'd be more places serving sauerbraten, lefsa, pickled herring, liver dumplings, and such. If it wasn't for IKEA, there'd be no place to get Swedish meatballs with lingonberries.)

Suppose you are a postmodernist philosopher
and also a mother. — Frederick KOH

Such things happen I suppose, but... quelles horreurs! The poor child... "Deconstruct this dirty diaper, mother!"

Everybody loves stomping on postmodernists, but you need to give us a bit more to go on.

Is it reductionist to be outraged if eye-witness accounts
are given equal weight as DNA testing? — Frederick KOH

I'm not sure I can work up outrage over this, but eye-witness testimony tends to be very faulty, so it would makes sense to be at least very alarmed if faulty testimony was preferred over something much more reliable, like DNA testing.

This painting, by "NYC artist Dana Schutz" is typical of her other works. The art blurbs supplied by the Saatchi Gallery are standard non-inferential art palaver. I find her stuff moderately pleasant and interesting to look at, but I don't know what it is about her work that makes her gallery worthy, but that's not the issue here. (I like "Chris's Rubber Soul"...

"Schutz uses painting as a means to invent things which just can’t exist in any other genre. In Chris’s Rubber Soul, she uses two-dimensional medium to create a sculpture: half archaic technology, half totemic fetish. Bound by no other logic than its own representation, Schutz offers a form for no other reason that its own contemplation, of beauty, humour, plausibility and possible function." — Saatchi

It has created an uproar in the art community. Many suggesting that this is the worst kind of cultural appropiation, where the artist makes fun & profits off their work at the expense of the black people's suffering. — Cavacava

I'm not sure whether "cultural appropriation" is a real thing, or just a short-out in the overheated academic imagination. Probably the latter. The term rarely if ever appeared in print until the mid 1980s (Google Ngram)--about the time post-modernism got on its roll. The term hit the big time very suddenly. If it is a crime, it's one of great refinement -- only the most delicate, sensitive, most prepared minds are going to suffer inconvenience.

Artists work for a living; Somebody will or has bought the painting. [EDIT: Schutz says that the painting was never and is not for sale.] Money will be exchanged. I don't think the painting is fun; I don't believe it was intended to, or accidentally did add to or subtracts from anyone's suffering.

Till's case is worth a quick review. It's appalling.

Lisa Whittington painted a much more compelling portrait of Emmrett Till "How She Sent Him and How She Got Him Back" here and explains what she thinks is wrong with Dana Schutz's painting. (For one, the artist was white. Oh dear.) But then, Ms. Whittington also did a painting where Emmett Till's likeness is on a wine bottle next to a wine glass. It's on par, in terms of softness, with the work of Ms. Schutz. Difference? Whittington's skin is black. (Ah, well, there you go! Now it's culturally relevant.)

I'm pretty sure Whittington's complaint is on target that galleries and museums give scant attention to black artists. They probably don't. But the policy of Saatchi is one thing, the intent of Schutz the artist is another, and being in the show isn't a fault of the artist.

Obviously, sex with a goat is to be preferred over child-rape.

What stake do we have in defending Islam vs. Christianity? A plague on both their houses.

It would be a good thing if the world's various religions just went out of business--Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, various animist cults, etc. There are bits and pieces here and there which might be alright to keep around, the food-oriented holidays, for instance.

Otherwise, get rid of it. Send your bibles, korans, and other holy books to be pulped and turned into toilet paper. Save the trees. Stop the nonsense.

Ridding the world of religion would not bring about world peace, of course. Hey, we'll still be human. It will just be clearer what we are fighting over. Like, "We're killing you because we hate your guts. Nothing personal, of course."

If a man has sex with an animal, he must be put to death, and the animal must be killed. Leviticus 20:15
— Michael

No such prohibition is to be found in the Quran or the Sahih.

The Quran does contain 109 verses that call Muslims to war with the kufar though. — tom

So, are we to suppose here that there are no objections to sex with an animal in Islam? I doubt it.

Is Islam more violent than the other Abrahamic religions? — VagabondSpectre

Abrahamic fundamentalists tend to end up in the weeds, regardless of which branch they adhere to, because fundamentalism tends to lead one into totalizing positions--all or nothing.

I haven't read the Koran, and I don't plan on it -- I don't plan on re-reading the whole OT or NT again, either. I can't speak first hand about how much encouragement to violence is incorporated into the text. I do know that our good allies and friends, the Saudi family, spends a lot of money promoting Wahhabism, which is not an especially friendly version of Islam.

Then too, the hottest hotbed of Islamic Rage is a shit hole in the Middle East, which is a pretty bad place to be, at any time. Some of the reasons it is bad are...

too many people
too little employment
too dry
too tribal
too many irrational borders
too much unhelpful interference by all and sum
too dreary a future
too many bombs
too many bad governments

Give any bunch of people these problems, whip up some religious hysteria (any variety) and voila -- bad news.

An independent article found Trump stated 14 factual errors as truth in that 30-minute interview. — ernestm

Trump has repeatedly accused Obama of playing too much golf rather than working. When it was pointed out he has already played golf 50% more than Obama, he claimed he was doing it to make business negotiations. He then banned reporters from seeing him during any golf he plays, claiming it does not help him make the deals. Today he was caught on camera sneaking out for golf by himself. For about 4 1/2 hours. It could be fair to say about 25% of the man's actual efforts are what other people would call intentional deceits. — ernestm

I DETEST Donald Trump, but bitching about Obama's time on the inks, or spewing factual errors doesn't make him a fascist, a proto-fascist, or a crypto-fascist. It makes him a poor excuse for POTUS.

Fascists tend to have a certain style, but what makes fascism dangerous is that it is a movement aimed at establishing a totalitarian dictatorship. Why? Because overcoming democratic institutions and practices generally requires subversion and violence. It takes blunt force applied to the body politic to suppress any likely reaction to fascism.

At the present time, the Republican Party and the President do not appear to be using subversion (as far as we can tell so far) and are not using violence. Nixon, for instance, employed criminal acts and subversion, but his aim was quite personal -- to get elected. If Trump invited assistance from the Russian government (as contemptible as that would be) it wasn't to establish a fascist state--it also was to get elected. These sorts of things are not excusable, but they are not fascism either.

The style of fascism appeals to some people, and attempting fascism-in-fact is an option which, so far, most American politicians have found very unsavory. Granted, that might not always be the case. It's not hard to imagine what American fascism might look like. But let's stick with solid definitions of what fascism is, so we don't waste the term on people who are not fascists, however bad they might be otherwise.

Which do you think is the more reasonable theory?
Virtue Ethics vs Utilitarianism — MonfortS26

What would cause us to care one way or the other--virtue ethics vs utilitarianism? Or for that matter, why care about ethics, the general welfare, the true, good, and beautiful, etc.? As Vernon said,

one’s character emerges from a “relevant moral community.” — Vernon

Do we not have to be interested in ethics before we can decide how to be ethical, how to do the right thing -- whether for virtue or for utilitarian considerations? If so, this would seem to give the edge to virtue ethics.

I saw a study that suggested that dumber people were more dishonest. — Wosret

That's odd. I saw a study that suggested just the opposite: Smart people tended to be more crooked.

I think that philosophers are more honest, and I think that honesty is the true mark of intelligence. — Wosret

Your study, my study, and your statement that philosophers are more honest (than horses, say) and that honesty is the true mark of intelligence are all groundless. It may be the case that stupid people are crooks, or that smart people are, but I'm pretty sure this hasn't been proved to the satisfaction of even a C+ GPA undergraduate psychology major.

What principles of behavior would link intelligence (a lot of it or only a little) to honesty? What is it about honesty and intelligence that connects them? Is it not more likely that a very smart person would think of successful ways to lie, cheat, and steal? Stupid people would trip themselves up and be discovered--dumb and dishonest, wouldn't they?

You may be right that philosophers are more honest (than horses, say) but why? Are they honest because they have nothing to lose? Maybe they know they are too unimaginative to lie and get away with it? Could it be that they took their ethics class seriously? Maybe they are merely afraid of getting caught in a lie -- which is different than valuing the truth highly.

Together we have reinforced the idea that people are not very good at philosophy, and that we may not be very good at psychology either. What the hell are we good at? Homo mediocriter. I'm poor at math, gardening, housekeeping, astronomy, Sanskrit, and bicycle maintenance, just for starters. I am also slightly dishonest.

Yes, very good observation. I don't know much about this, but I do know that tribe/family is an essential structure in some countries. An overlay of democratic (or autocratic) government is likely to chafe on the underlying system of loyalties. Glad I don't live in such a place.

There's not one system of government that hasn't failed
— TheMadFool

Yep. But they do pretty well prior to failure, don't they? — Mongrel

I can't think of many places that go months, let alone decades, without functioning governments. "Failed states" are pretty bad places to live. Many people in Russia miss the Soviet Union because, despite its egregious bad practices, it also provided pretty good services to people. As one US immigrant from the Soviet Union said, "There were always offices where one could go with specific problems, and they generally did something about the problem." Provided there was a solution, of course.

Given a housing shortage, the local communist apparatchiks weren't going to give you a bigger place just because the one you had was kind of small and crowded. On the other hand, they could get the heat working again. They could resolve a lot of administrative problems (but not get your husband out of Siberia, just because his wife wanted him back).

True. So if we started public executions, do you think the crime rate would go down, or stay the same? — Mongrel

In earlier times, public executions enabled prostitutes and pick pockets to do land office business. Of course, in earlier times capital punishment covered some crimes we classify as misdemeanors.

That's true. When you take something that grew organically over centuries and replace it with a mangled mess of codified British law and explicit racism, the resulting society may be hyper-conservative.. just trying to hold itself together. Is that what you mean? — Mongrel

Well, some of what you said here is true, but what I meant was that the British laid down territorial boundaries in such a way as to divide ethnic homelands, mix ethnic groups who didn't have overflowing love for each other, and allocated resources so as to aggravate competition among groups. In other words, divide and conquer. When they abandoned their colonial management, the colonial boundaries stuck, leaving sliced and diced populations. They did this in a number of places.

Colonialism, per se, is racist when your colonies are mostly on colored continents. British law and administrative practice wasn't all bad. Some observers think British controlled Africa would be better off now if the British had had longer tenure, giving them more time to inculcate their management and civil government practices. Greater India had a thorough education in British administrative practice. (Here I'm referencing record keeping, filing, reporting, counting, investigating, balancing the books, stuff like that. British rule in India didn't put them in line for the Nobel Humanitarian Prize. They were often harsh.) Further, British management brought Indian merchants to Africa where they became one more pain in the collective of the local people. The Indians weren't equal to the British, but they were superior to the blacks, and they controlled a lot of the local commerce and trade.

Then, over all, the purpose of having colonies in the first place is/was to extract wealth from the natives, which the British, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, Belgians, and Germans most efficiently and ruthlessly did.

The trouble with dictatorships is that considerable force is generally required to get into, stay in, and exercise power. Usually the military and secret police are employed as the shaft that makes people obey. How much shafting is employed usually depends how much resistance is developed, or how paranoid and unstable the ruling cliques are. The results are sometimes tolerable and stable, but all too often (like, usually) the amount of shafting employed generates more resistance, more paranoia, and more violence in a hell-bound spiral.

So, how does one set up a multi-ethnic government in Kenya, Syria, or...?

One solution is to balkanize the country--and maybe regions. Give small territories to the groups that dominate them (the way the Serbs, Croats, Montenegrins, Kosovoites, and Albanians were sorted out). This makes sense, especially if there are strong historical precedents. Lots of countries and regions have histories that preceded the colonial era, and are remembered.

IF, and it is a big IF, the small homogeneous states can get their stuff together and operate successfully, fine. If two adjacent mini-states want to merge, do so and make it work, fine. Otherwise, don't merge.

Shia and Sunni populations may be at each others throats because they were manipulated into this antagonism (recently). Maybe propaganda can manipulate them back into peaceable community. Maybe not. Maybe separate territories need to be allocated -- not for each and every one, but enough separation so that they, as 2 (3, or 4) separate groups feel like they have their own space.

Maybe the dictator (Assad for Syria) needs to be eliminated, by some effective means or another. There are major risks, here, which is one of the reasons it hasn't happened. The Assad family has a ghastly history, but in most years there were hardly any large scale massacres. Just a few. Pull the Assad plug and there might be a period of (worse) bloody reprisals--even worse than Assad. Iraq had problems before the Americans arrived, true enough, but our abrupt plug pulling on Saddam Hussein and the Baathist party cause a massive deterioration in conditions, as bad as, if not worse than the excesses of mr. Hussein.

Draining swamps needs to be done with great finesse. Just pulling the plug can backfire badly.

There are people who think that some countries are ill-served by encouraging them to set up democratic governments. "the people are not ready for self-government" the theory goes. A given country might have too many competing ethnic groups within its border -- ethnic groups that had never wished to live together--for democracy to work. These kinds of states are better off, the theory goes, if a strong man rules over them. A dictatorship, authoritarian rule.

While a country may have a great many political fault lines within its society, dictatorship does nothing (usually) to prepare people to live together without dictatorship. Tito managed to keep the lid on all the seething ethic rivalries in Yugoslavia until the Communist Party's rule ended around 1990. 50 years of suppressing The Peoples' ethnic itches resulted in an orgy of genocidal activity of the sort one associates with Nazi Germany.

The colonial powers of the 19th and 20th centuries are largely responsible for constructing countries that are difficult to govern, They either drew national boundaries (in the middle east) that made very little sense, or (in Africa) they arranged boundaries to disadvantage ethnic groups. Ethnic groups like the Kurds were left out altogether. In Kenya the Kikuyu and Luo groups (and quite a few others compete for power, privilege, and resources.