Yes, there's the mentality over there to view people as symptoms or in stronger cases pathologic problems, and not view them as humans. I don't know how or why (given that Eastern European countries produce some of the best doctors and medical professionals, the education there is really up there, as I tried studying medicine myself during my stay there) this sentiment emerged; but, it's a devastating way to view a child let alone a person, as a human being. — Posty McPostface

Sure. Here in Eastern Europe mental illness is something to be ashamed of, something you should keep as hidden as possible, because it can be used against you. If people hear it, they look at you differently. But, sometimes that can also be a good thing, because it stops you from wasting your time with the wrong people.

Yes, it's a classic (post)-modern era Marxist's sleight of hand; and if the "night-porter" schtick is true, you can throw in a very healthy does of the invidia the decalogue TWICE warns us against, i.e. the kind of bitter class envy - or rather, the kind of vicious class jealously the french call ressentiment that always ends in grief. — Dachshund

I very much doubt that unenlightened always was a night-porter. He may have been a night-porter at some time, but my guess is that unenlightened is much better off than he makes it show over here.

Well, to be honest, that is quite common for Eastern European parents to answer to their children. My parents were the same back when I suffered of mental health issues - it's just the attitude Eastern Europeans have towards mental health, they tend to view it as if the person who is suffering from it is inferior.

entrepreneurship — Hanover

I actually think BC, as he is now at least, would have made a good entrepreneur. He seems quite clear-headed, and also quite thorough & methodical when discussing a particular subject. He also seems to have good social skills, though maybe a little too ideologically motivated, at least for certain kinds of entrepreneurship. But that's the impression I get solely from what I've seen of him on PF.

For as long as I've known him unenlightened has played the humble card, I'm used to it already.

I guess your plan is 'get rich, get powerful, then implement a practical plan.' — unenlightened

Yeeeeeeeeees, how did you guess so well? :smirk:

But if you want to discuss that let's go somewhere more congenial than this Pinker v pinko thread. — unenlightened

Ok, take me there kind Sir.

I'm a retired night-porter, and my influence is limited to making posts here and there. — unenlightened

I have no clue what a night-porter is, but okay.

Do what you can. — unenlightened

Doesn't sound like much of a plan. That's what happens with many on the left on these issues - if you ask what's the plan, there usually isn't any. People just shrug, go protest a little bit on the street, and little happens.

No, I meant serious proposals for addressing the problems you mentioned. I don't see what I can do granted that I'm not a member of government and have literarily zero political influence, especially when it pertains to influencing such matters.

So what do you propose we do about it?

Ok, what do you propose?

Dear Mr Crank — Dachshund

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

The overwhelming majority of people who starve to death are non-white. — unenlightened

Why is skin color relevant to the problem of starvation if you don't mind me asking?

I've been told and even asked by people who know me, 'Where is your ego?' — Posty McPostface

No wonder, that's standard questioning from Eastern European parents towards their male children :rofl:

Not sure why it would take a monk a lifetime sitting in isolation on a mountain to figure that out. — TimeLine

:chin: Hmmm someone who doesn't understand what monks do... Right :confused:

To have an ego is to have a sense of self, or to be a conscious thinking subject. Based on everything you've said there you haven't got rid of your ego. You use the words me and I enough times in this post to conclude you do have an ego. The ego is the centre of being.

You even make statements where you hold yourself (your ego) in contrast with other things/people, which again only confirms you have an ego. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

I agree. From what I've seen from Posty on the forum, he seems like a person who doesn't know what they want. It is not infrequent for Posty to radically change aims - one day Posty says he is an idealist and has decided to go back to University to study philosohpy - another Posty says that he will work with a friend on supplement business. These frequent and quick changing in thinking is, I believe, an important clue. I think Posty may contextualise this inability to anchor himself in some purpose or way of life as "egolessness".

an obese pregnant woman puts their baby at various kinds of risk. — Thorongil

Specific case, not universal.

It drives up the cost of health care — Thorongil

Hmmm no. That's already taken into account - either the person pays out of their own wallet, or their insurance company pays for them - rest assured that if they are obese the insurance company will take this into account in their risk profile, and hence the amount of money they pay for insurance.

Sure, why not? — Thorongil

Because it's absurd. For one, it cannot be enforced (too expensive). And the costs to third-parties are basically non-existent.

And the example I'm using from the Bible isn't a case of self-defence. Was it self-defence when God killed the firstborn of Egypt? Was it self-defence when Saul was ordered to kill the children and infants of Amalek? — Michael

Irrelevant. They were forms of divine punishment.

No. Life is sacred. That is exactly why killing someone in self-defence has a different status (since they may have killed you otherwise). So murder is ALWAYS wrong in-itself. In circumstances like self-defence, it's not that killing someone isn't wrong, but it's excusable since you didn't have a choice.

1) Judea was a ROMAN province and hence was under the lex Romana.
2) Jesus said NOTHING against either abortion or infanticide.
3) Run along now please! — charleton

The Jews had their own law.

But you seemed to question René Descartes believing in God if he believed in a woman's right to choose — Michael

Yes, because abortion in-itself is wrong. There are circumstances when it may be acceptable - I listed a few.

I agree with you and LT for the most part, except that I would say that abortion should be legal if the mother's life is in danger - she should have that choice. Otherwise, in most other cases (excluding rape, etc.) it should be illegal. — Agustino

Abortion, like self-defence, might be one of those occasions where murder is justified. — Michael

That's exactly what I've been saying.

Now add 2 and 2 together and see that someone who kills another in self-defence doesn't approve of murder in-itself.

So self-defence is murder? — Michael

Sure.

"murder" = killing another living creature, but especially a human being.
"infanticide" = killing babies or children.

Infanticide is the intentional killing of infants. God intentionally killed infants. He told Saul to intentionally kill infants. — Michael

Right, and you'll do a sophistry and define murder as the unlawful killing of someone. Sure. *shakes head* :confused:

Yes. It's right there in the quotes. God killed the firstborn of Egypt. God told Saul to kill children and infants. — Michael

So what? That doesn't mean He approves of infanticide. Just like someone doesn't approve of murder if they kill another person in self-defence.

If someone kills another person in self-defence it doesn't mean that they approve of murder.

I simply provided sources that showed God approved of infanticide (whether by his own hand or by the hand of another, e.g. Saul), even if in certain circumstances. — Michael

Nope.

Despite infanticide and abortion being permitted under the law, — charleton

No it wasn't.

Yeah what's the problem with that as punishment from God? They never accepted it as a moral practice in-itself. Just like murder in-itself is wrong, but, in self-defence, in certain circumstances, for example, it is acceptable.

:rofl:

He absolutely did. That you would think that the Jews would approve of infanticide is idiocy. Have you read the second book of the Torah, the Exodus?

I mean, in most cases I would say it is immoral, BUT, I'm not sure there should be a law against it.

Are you OK with voluntary euthanasia, then? — Michael

Not sure.

I don't see anything wrong with abortion. It's a woman's right to choose if she wants a child or not. — René Descartes

And you believe in God?

It's gunning down people who made it all the way to personhood, a name, preferences, friends, lovers, etc. that outrages people. — Bitter Crank

No.

I agree with you and LT for the most part, except that I would say that abortion should be legal if the mother's life is in danger - she should have that choice. Otherwise, in most other cases (excluding rape, etc.) it should be illegal.

Don't approve of abortions? Then don't have one. — Bitter Crank

Nature did not give me the power to have one :rofl:

I think everything that's immoral should be illegal. — Thorongil

No, you probably don't think that. Do you think gluttony should be illegal? Not everything immoral ought to be illegal because not everything immoral has harmful consequences on third-parties. We only make those immoral actions which have harmful consequences on third-parties illegal. If an immoral action harms just the doer, then there are no grounds for it to be outlawed.

1. More concealable. — Thorongil

Nothing to do with its capacity to kill a lot of people quickly.

2. Ammunition and firearm are lighter, allowing shooter to carry multiple pistols and ammunition. — Thorongil

Same as above.

3. Less moving parts, therefore, less opportunities to malfunction. — Thorongil

:confused:

4. More accurate at close range with less recoil. — Thorongil

Yeah, but when someone just wants to kill people, accuracy isn't so important as other factors - like being able to spray a lot of bullets quickly, covering a large area.

5. Harder to disarm an active shooter, especially if the shooter has no "real" training or understanding of "Pie" with regards to clearing a room. — Thorongil

Hmm, sure. But again, this has nothing to do with the potential of the weapon. The one has greater destructive potential than the other.

8. Requires less skill to operate with efficiency. — Thorongil

Not true. It's harder to hit a target with a pistol since firing rate is slower. Close quarters it doesn't make much difference, but at some distance it does.

The 9mm Glock would be one. That's what the Orlando shooter predominantly used once he got into enclosed spaces, for example. — Thorongil

You got to be kidding me :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


If you think this one is as effective at killing a large number of people as the AR-15, then you're just kidding yourself. Given the same amount of time and the same situation, the AR-15 will kill more people.

But I wonder, I really wonder why so much time is spent on this issue. Why are there no philosophers and no threads arguing that when a homeless person freezes to death while there are warm places locked up all around him, that is murder; that refusing your spare bedroom to a refugee is murder. — unenlightened

Very simple - I could give my couch to a refugee to sleep, but how do I know that he won't turn around and rob me, or harm my family, etc.? I have no such guarantee, hence I'm not willing to take the risk. In addition, I am not directly responsible for his plight and suffering, the way the woman would be with regards to her child (in most circumstances).

If it wrong for a woman to refuse to sustain and house someone in her body who has need, then it is wrong to refuse to sustain and house any person who has need. — unenlightened

Except that the woman most of the time (excluding cases of rape) is partly responsible for the child who is there, whereas I am not, in any direct way, responsible for the refugee or any random person who has need.

Examples?

But they are. People have done just that with them. — Thorongil

No, they're not. This is just outright BS. Do a thought experiment - which weapon can kill more people faster? The answer will be clear. Of course, it's also possible to kill a lot of people with a pistol, just more difficult. So what I said is true:

That doesn't mean pistols are as capable of killing a large number of people as the upgraded AR-15. — Agustino

I found courses in Tarot reading and Reiki!! I love it. $10.99 each. Also, more practical things. No irony intended. — T Clark

You like Tarot and Reiki? :rofl:

Cannot? What are you talking about? There have been plenty of mass shootings by means of pistols. — Thorongil

Yeah, so what? That doesn't mean pistols are as capable of killing a large number of people as the upgraded AR-15.