given a sensible standard of what poverty — DingoJones

This is what I am disputing. Standards of poverty are not absolute, but relative, and hence, arbitrary. I can't deal making absolute judgments based on arbitrary evidence.

You do it.

I always were my helmet. — Arne

Then you don't feel the wind in your hair.

Sometime you have to let your hair down, the wind out, and mix the two.

Or maybe not. Oy.

If you believe you have free will and you do not, you could not have believed otherwise. — Arne

This is patently false.

If you believe you have free will, but you don't, you were caused to believe that you have free will.

There is no magic about it.

There are often people registering here and posting that ‘free will is an illusion’. When I can be bothered, I ask if if they did so voluntarily. If they claim they didn’t, then I say discussion is pointless as they cannot be persuaded to change their minds. If they say they did, then they don’t have a case. — Wayfarer

I am sure the opposite happens all the time. (Your changing your mind on the conviction whether there is free will or not.)

Think public resistence to general medicare introduced in the USA. Same difference.

Please I beg you to work it out for yourself, because the concept is too simple to interest me to explain.

1. Prohibition: Practicing torture by United States Citizens is illegal, and is considered to be immoral and below the dignity of a person who is a free and dignified citizen of the US of A.

2. Permission: the US must show to those bastardly Arabs who it is really that calls the shots; so a select bunch of sadistical US citizens have been recruited to perpetually torture a number of Arab detainees in some island location outside the United States' own lands.

3. Prohibition: a US president made a promise to end this unconscionable sadistical practice by dignified US citizens.

4. Permission: the US president did not follow through with this promise, for some to me unknown reason.

---------------

Again, this does not satisfy all the criteria you set up to be followed, JosephS, but it does satisfy some part of your criteria.

1. Outer shell: God makes everything happen.
2. Except in the case of Free Will given to man.
3. Except free will was given to man by god.
4. Except god can't create a problem he can't solve
4.1. and the free will problem can't be solved.
5. Except the free will problem can be solved by god, because he is all-powerful.
6. Except the notion of being all-powerful can be shown to be self-contradictory.

0000000000000000000000
JosephS, does this fit the bill? I did not put it in a permission/ prohibition sense, only in the "except" sense. I hope it's acceptable what I wrote as a response to your appeal.

Is it moral for our governments to impose poverty on us? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Who is "us"? Is the entire population poor?

What do you think is the cause of poverty? Couldn't we just address that? — DingoJones

The REAL cause of poverty is the arbitrary setting of the measures of income and of asset possession, which have nothing to do with anything, but with some think-tanks arbitrary (i.e. individualistic, relativistic, indefendable (by morals, by logic or by economic impact)) decision of what constitutes "poverty".

If you set the indicators of "poverty" low enough, then you can eradicate poverty on the entire globe in one fell swoop overnight.

Relevant additional study: http://arielrubinstein.tau.ac.il/papers/73.pdf

When asked to hypothetically fire a significant amount of the workers in a factory in order to maintain the previous year’s profit (even though one could choose to fire fewer workers and still make a profit), economic students would on average fire as many people as possible, while philosophy students would fire the least. — NKBJ

While those who stand a higher risk to be fired would prefer a social-economic system of protective socialism, the workers who go on working would tend to prefer a less intensive socialist economic system.

Yikes... the big difference between science and technical analysis in the investment field is that science theories, after gaining support by evidence, are reliable, while on the other hand the technical analyst WILL get it right SOME of the time, you don't know with each instance ahead of the news whether that will be right that time, or it will be wrong that time... there is no assurance, only a randomly distributed set of "correct hits" among a randomly distributed "incorrect hits". If the ratio of "correct hits" over "incorrect hits" exceeds 1, then technical analysis is a worthwhile (although not the best) investment tool. However, to date, this has not been the case (as far as I know.)

Say "hello" to the Brave New World full of Avatars. Say good-bye to the necessity of physical experience.

Just plug me into making out with [substitute here your favourite celebrity, from Rachel Welch to Mother Theresa, form Genghis Khan to R2D2, from Vladimir Ilyich Lenin to Golda Meir] and Bob is your uncle.

With commercial breaks every fifteen minutes, of course.

There is no such thing as "use" in a general sense because each instance of using something is unique and particular. — Metaphysician Undercover

I.e., there is no such thing as anything.

bongo fury
32
↪Metaphysician Undercover
As expected, very different views on "use". Thanks for the clarification. — bongo fury

If one of you is called Hugh, then the assertion "The difference is huge, of Hugh's views on use of "use"." would make perfect sense.

That sticks like shit to a blanket! — Janus

Metaphysical Undercover would probably dismiss yours as a "blanket statement". Remember, s/he is into undercover, not blankets.

How does the term 'function' function for our precocious three year old girl? Perhaps "function" means "I want it" and she is not going to give it up.
5 days ago — Fooloso4

That's the first thing that pooped into my mind, too. The young child probably meant "shit" by "function". Sub "pooh pooh" for "function" and it all makes sense all of a sudden.

Ize... Philo majors don't make any money. So they DEPEND on public hand-outs.

Eco and finance people, and esp. lawyers, make lots of money, so they don't need socialist welfare.

If you drew a chart on on axis counting the money earned by average graduate per discipline, and on the other axis average trend to like socialism (on one end) or capitalism, you'd get a clear picture.

"Where you stand depends on where you sit."

Dear Pantagruel, our stances are getting wider and wider apart, instead of approaching each other.

I suggest that our opinions are so very irreconcilable with each other, that it is futile to go on with this conversation.

You maintain that altruism is possible, there is freedom of will, and god is good. I maintain that there is no true unadulterated altruism; I deny the freedom of will or of any other choice bearers on the premise that evething causes something, and every effect has a cause, which natually leads to determinism, which rigorously excludes the possibility of anything free; I believe there is no god(s).

I hope you can agree that our debate will lead to no convergent conclusion. So I suggest we abandon it now. Thanks.

I like this quota system. Can I quota you on this?

Quota is the currency of self-control. With some activities, you collect and stockpile quota, with other activities, you spend quota; you run out of self-control when you don't have enough quota to finish activities that require the spending of quota.

Pretty straight-forward and useful.

Growing old is a very good thing, because otherwise one is dead. — Bitter Crank

The pot of gold at the end of the rainbow? None else but death.

Okay, I got it. I was confused because "not facing up to" is a bit different from "lack of concern toward". Lack of concern acknowledges or rather, does not exclude knowledge of. "Not facing up"is denial.

Just a minor difference, i guess. Not facing up is to fear is bravery borne of ignorance; lack of concern toward fear is bravery via phlegmatism. If you want to call the first one cowardice, so be it, but I'd still call it false bravery.

I liked your art of describing art, philosophy, and, well, and everything else. It had a good flow, a good rhythm.

To me it was unreadable after the first few paragraphs. NOT you script's fault! My ineptitude or inability to read longer texts than a few paragraphs.

The whole thing read like prose poetry... somewhat repetitive, in the structure of the language and the ideas. To me the repetitiveness was too much, it was carried beyond my comprehensive faculty... ti was like reading a long list of single adjectives by an imaginary but typical woman to describe herself on a dating site.

So the strength of your write was also its weakness, but only to me.

two of his older songs -- due to both lyrics and music -- make me cry every time I hear them. "Mighty Quinn" and "Watchtower". MQ is about a pusher who brings snow (heroine?) and the Watchtower is about ... erm... I still don't know, having listened to it a million times, but it simply wrestles your soul to the ground.

Both songs have a better verson than by Dylan. MQ by Manfred Mann, W by Jimi.

And then there is "Tangled Up In Blue"... it is a masterpiece. Both music and lyrics.

I was extremely happy when the news came out he got it. I never felt more healthy pride... I felt that finally one of "us" got the award of distinction. By "us" I meant the flower children and everyone else who came after. "I hope that I die before I get old" sort of people. (ironically, we all got old...reality. Again! What a gyp.)

but after the Flood it was permitted: Genesis 9:3 — Fooloso4

Lots of salt-water or brime marinated fish and steaks. It was the most economic thing to do under the circumstances.

I'm all for throwing out the ten commandments. And replacing them with ten new commandments. Reading word-for-word the same.

(God walks the face of the Earth. Meets a Pharacee."Pharacee, I have a commandment for ya." the Pharacee says, "okay... what is it?" "Thou shalt not steal." The Pharacee looks at Him, in dismay, and says, "are you nuts? I cant' use that commandment. Our entire economy would collapse if we banned thieving." And he goes away.

God meets a Roman. "Roman, I have a commandment for you." "What is it?" "Thou shalt not kill." The Roman looks at him with disdain. "Not kill?" he says. "Our entire empire is built on aggression, fear, and physical force. I can't use that commandment."

God walks down the road farther, and meets Moses. "Moses, I have a commandment for you." Moses looks concerned. "How much does it cost?" He asks. God says, "None, realy. It's free." Moses pipes up: "I'll take ten!!"

People no longer live by the words of the Bible. Actually, never have.

Better books on management techniques have been written by experts since the first century.

Maybe people don't like it (reality) being right all the time? — Wallows

Yeah... reality... fucking know-it-all.

He probably thinks there are no real fish, as well. — Bitter Crank

Well, I hope to hell there are no real fish in my water form the well.

Why do people focus on questions as to whether something is real or not? — Wallows

I concur. Is reality wrong?

Well, I was right with the "William". Ought to have quit while I was still ahead and stop at William.

Another poet:

"I was so much older then... I'm younger than that now."

Here's the real deal:


My Back, Pages!
Bob Dylan

Crimson flames tied through my ears, rollin' high and mighty traps
Pounced with fire on flaming roads using ideas as my maps
"We'll meet on edges, soon, " said I, proud 'neath heated brow
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now

Half-wracked prejudice leaped forth, "rip down all hate, " I screamed
Lies that life is black and white spoke from my skull, I dreamed
Romantic facts of musketeers foundationed deep, somehow
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now

Girls' faces formed the forward path from phony jealousy
To memorizing politics of ancient history
Flung down by corpse evangelists, unthought of, though somehow
Ah, but I was so much older then. I'm younger than that now

A self-ordained professor's tongue too serious to fool
Spouted out that liberty is just equality in school
"Equality, " I spoke the word as if a wedding vow
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now

In a soldier's stance, I aimed my hand at the mongrel dogs who teach
Fearing not that I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach
My existence led by confusion boats, mutiny from stern to bow
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now

Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats too noble to neglect
Deceived me into thinking I had something to protect
Good and bad, I define these terms quite clear, no doubt, somehow
Ah, but I was so much older then I'm younger than that now

I learned this when my children were born. I've talked about it with other parents too, and most of them agree. Babies being born are all there. They are the people they will be from the first second. — T Clark

"The child is father to the man." I think William Shakespeare.

“laziness is lack of concern toward fear” — I like sushi

Why is not being concerned by fear cowardice? Isn't it more like bravery? A brave person disregards his or her own fear, and enters a dangerous situation.

So in the end when you boil down that person that you are to its bare minimum you realize that you are a combination of your parents, your experiences and your tastes that may also rely on your experiences.... — Filipe

In my books that's good enough to define the real me.

What, in your view, would constitute a real person? What you wrote is what comprises a real person to me.

Those are adorable!! I would so much like to make mad and passionate love to them!

It's like when Dan Dennett argued there were no good reasons to believe in god...because he couldn't come up with any. — Pantagruel

True. There are lots of reasons to believe in god. But they are not good reasons. Not even one of them.

Clearly, there is lots of evidence for altruism. It seems that you don't accept it. — Pantagruel

I accept altruism, But I maintain that altruism is never selfless. This seems to be a contradiction in terms, as altruism means doing good deed selflessly. But when you do good deeds selflessly, you satisfy some of your own needs. You do selfless acts because it gives you satisfaction. Because it appeases your guilt. Because it gives you a feeling of committed fair trade. There is never a pleasureless act of altruism.

And like I said, to religious people in some relgions altruism is a must-do to reward greater benefits later, according to their dogma.

So maybe your wording is right. I don't accept that there is truly and purely altruistic behaviour out there.

And my point is that you just simply don't notice, because perhaps you don't want to, or don't know how, the selfish motivation in "altruism" when you say

Clearly, there is lots of evidence for altruism. — Pantagruel

This is not a perception problem; it is a problem of not thinking the process entirely through.

Yes, you're right. I do deny that there is pure, unadulterated altruism out there happening. By that I mean that there is no altruism happening in which the giver does not enjoy benefits of his or her own altruism. This I maintain.

If you can give me just one example of altruist behaviour that does not benefit the giver in any way, please do.

Snowflakes are more random than not, I'd venture to say. Because their cristalline forms are determined by the angle hydrogen and oxygen atoms form in the water (ice) molecules, and considering there are no two identical snowflakes.

Ultimately this is a question of a fundamental belief. — Pantagruel

The way you proposed this point, everything is a question of fundamental belief. Other than a priori truths.

I think we have to step beyond just belief. If we get stuck at the belief stage, our human race is nothing but a bunch of superstitious monkeys running around. Reason gives us a way to handle belief as knowledge -- I would rather go with that.

Any arguments against lefties? — TheMadFool

You mean, of the kind, "Lefties don't exist! A leftie is like a flying teacup on an orbit around the sun. I can only believe, not know per se, that it exists, and that only if I want to."

No, I have no arguments against lefties.

Just think of the possibilities! If this lead to cell regeneration, then maybe one day we could recycle pigs to slaughter and eat over and over again. — S

this is funny in a scary and morbid sort of way.