It seems to me that having an experience of eating pizza cannot be simulated. That is because my experience of reality requires more than BiV, it requires sensory organs that can experience the reality. The proof is in the pudding, or in this case, the pizza. I think that if you remove the sensory abilities of the organism, you remove phenomenal consciousness too, or at least you remove the phenomenal consciousness of what is sensed. Experience is a more integrated process than just brain processing, in my opinion.

Not only that, but the BiV argument removes the entire body, replacing it with "a vat of nutrients which keeps the brain alive" (Putnam, Brains in a Vat). The assumption that the body only keeps the brain alive and does not factor into phenomenal experience is a materialist form of dualism that ought to be dismissed as nonsense.

There's a quote function for quoting, which I didn't use, and posts are right below each other. I know reading and thinking are difficult for you but I have a higher standard for people's average reading abilities than that.

Perhaps you should use it instead of misquoting people. Then you'd see that when I using the phrase "bullying tactics" I was using the same exact phrase as my interlocutor, who used the phrase to explain why Trump ought to be condescended to. So not only did you misquote me, but you could not even paraphrase me properly. Like him, you just like to talk about me at the expense of the subject, apparently.

Or simply the payment for the services they provide is called taxes.

I would consider that a gross mischaracterization because paying for services does not require involuntary methods of exchange. Not only that but everywhere I've lived I have never been given a receipt of what exactly I payed for. I'm not sure if I've payed for garbage pickup or for Trudeau's socks.

A better way to look at it is racketeering or some other criminal activity. It's a complete scam.

It could be characterized as skimming, a form of fraud. Assume you could follow just one dollar through its tax cycle. For example, I don't know if it's the same in Finland, but here government employees are taxed just like any other private employee. So a tax dollar might find itself in the wage of one over-payed government worker, but then that money is taxed again and goes right back into government coffers. If it was you or me doing that it would be skimming, but when the government does it it is just how we pay for services. This is why the government not only has the monopoly on violence, but also the monopoly on crime.

You are intentionally dropping crucial things here that the sociologist Max Weber pointed out.

In his definition of a state, it is a "human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory". Legitimacy comes from the acceptance of the people, and behind a state is a human community. Not some others like zombies who make up the government, who somehow aren't part of the people.

In Economy and Society Weber defines the state as such:

"A "ruling organization" will be called "political" insofar as its existence and order is continuously safeguarded within a given territorial area by the threat and application of physical force on the part of the administrative staff. A compulsory political organization with continuous operations (politischer Anstaltsbetrieb') will be called a "state" insofar as its administrative staff successfully upholds the claim to the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force in the enforcement of its order. Social action, especially organized action, will be spoken of as "politically oriented" if it aims at exerting influence on the government of a political organization; especially at the appropriation, expropriation, redistribution or allocation of the powers of government."

I haven't read the lecture you cite, so the claim I was intentionally leaving things out is dubious, but I believe the "human community" he is speaking of in your quote is the "administrative staff" of the sate. No one else in your group "the people" claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory.

It's no doubt that you find the state's authority and legitimacy sacrosanct, but conflating the will of the state with the will of the people is mistake. The only human community behind the state is its administrative staff.

Yet perhaps for an individualist liberal, it's hard to fathom people functioning as a community, but it does happen.

It's hard to fathom how one can be so loose with the term "community", that it would contain both the ruling class and its subjects, as if they shared a common interest. But that's collectivism for you.

It’s called misquoting, a common tactic of propaganda. You’ve never heard of it?

Puts quotes around something no one said. Lies called out.

… you.

You’re displaying bullying tactics, dear. I thought you were opposed to such antics.

In that same conversation he did brag about hitting on Nancy O'Dell, referring to himself as “I” and recalling his actions, according to his own word. Nancy O’Dell did not say she was assaulted. In the quote you cite, there is no reference to himself nor an actual event nor actual people. So no, it is not clear.

And they did use that irrelevant “evidence”, a conversation a decade after the alleged event, at that very trial, proving to me how specious it all was. Saying “you can do anything” is not any brag about what Trump himself did, no matter how hard you spin it.

So there has been any nation that has not used taxes to fund militaries. Why is that? What's your theory? Mine is you can't fund militaries without taxes, not for a nation of any significant size.

My theory is that governments need to plunder their populace to sustain their activity because they do not have other means to do so. They possess the monopoly on violence, and therefor criminality, so it is indeed a point of fact that they will use the spoils of their plunder to finance their wars. None of this is evidence or an argument that it cannot nor should not be otherwise.

I’m claiming there is no evidence for any sexual assault, not to mention a very reasonable doubt.

Why don’t you tell me what Trump did? You must know.

So?

States have historically begged for, borrowed, or stolen money to fund wars. War bonds, donations, money-printing, slavery, conscription, economic revenue and other methods besides taxation have been used by governments to fund militaries. So it has been done.

There isn't any nation that does so. Icelandic and Costa Rican police do get their pay through taxes.

Yes, governments everywhere run protection rackets.

Has there ever in history (or now) been any decently sized country that has run their military that way?

I’m not sure. Is the absence of something an argument against something, in your eyes?

He was found liable for sexual assault. That is wrongdoing.

Being found guilty of a crime is not the same thing.

A wrongdoing is to believe a decades-old assault occurred when time renders evidence and memory obsolete and unreliable. They have statutes of limitations for those reasons. A wrong doing is to dismiss the statute of limitations, and further, to do it for one-year only, for political reasons, as the New York State politicians made abundantly clear. It’s a wrong-doing to hold a show trial.

Voluntarily paid for by those who purchase the services, sure.

NY state democrats literally introduced legislation, in collusion with Carrol’s lawyers, to get Trump. They have to make up legislation in order to penalize Trump for it. Complete show trial.

That’s right. He was not found guilty of the crime of sexual assault.

Militias, private militaries, security contractors.

I wouldn’t. But a moral means to funding anything is through just and voluntary transactions.

It’s evil to take people’s property and force them to labor for your benefit without any just and voluntary compensation. Do you think there is there no other way to fund an enterprise without this method?

Sexual assault is a crime. No one has been found guilty of it. End of story.

It was a sham trial with a sham judge, long past the statutes of limitation, lacking any hard evidence, and in a hostile jurisdiction.

Figure it out.

Only because Trump didn’t show for the trial, not that he actually assaulted anyone. Liability isn’t guilt.

The only thing I can see clearly is that Trump has surely stepped into many people's ways. No wonder they want him removed and indicted him for so many times.

That is true. Most of all he said things people didn’t like, single-handedly smashing the illusion of statesmanship, which for Americans is sacrosanct. One can spend days looking through indictments, criticisms, and books for any wrongdoing that isn’t verbal and come up empty-handed. Meanwhile, if you say the correct words and repeat the proper platitudes (or with Joe Biden’s method, plagiarize them or fabricate them), you can get away with pretty much anything.

When the abolitionists came after slavery there was no shortage of beneficiaries who extolled the benefits of slavery. No doubt slave labor generated a better quality of life for those who profited from it, but some of those defenders even claimed it led to a better quality of life for the slave. In the US, some argued Slaves were better clothed, protected, fed, than their free brethren, who had no such institution to rely on.

The same sort of utilitarian arguments defend taxation, leaving the morality out of it. The point is: the benefits of taxation can only ever serve to mask the evils of the entire enterprise. It is exploitation on a mass scale. It is forced labor. It is theft. If exploitation on a mass scale, forced labor, and theft leads to a better quality of life from those who benefit from it, it’s not worth it.

You're probably right. Perhaps I should not comment so much on Trump since I have only very limited knowledge of him, unlike most of you.

No, you were right. I would trust your own thoughts long before any acolyte of Western intelligentsia.

The anti-Trump propaganda in the West puts any historical propaganda to blame. People still believe he colluded with Russia, for example, and will never take any accountability for lying about it for so long.

You said that a valid excuse is being too young. That means that those not too young do not have a valid excuse and you consider them murderers (unlawful killers). To be clear, saying adults getting an abortion are killers is different than saying adults getting an abortion are murderers. The latter is considered criminal. You used the term "murder" here

I used the term murder because you did. I clearly said I don’t consider it [abortion] murder. It’s homicide by definition.

You asked me what my principles said, not what popular opinion said. It's an awkward question, and redundant since I just answered it, but that's what you asked. I did go further though, and you seem to have ignored that part.

I asked what your principles were because when I asked your view on the matter you said you would go along with 93% of the population. 16 weeks. I don’t remember asking for any stat, any number of weeks, any cut-off. I asked for your views on the matter, that matter being abortion. 16 weeks is your view on abortion.

You’re just too strange and laborious to philosophize with, praxis. I gave it a shot.

Until a certain age, apparently. I asked what the cut-off age is. Again, I don't care if you don't want to answer. That is up to you.

I have no cut-off.

They say around 16 weeks. If you're asking which are strongest on this issue it's hard to say. Like you, I'd say that autonomy is high on the list. Unlike you, I'd say that equality is also high on the list. That I look to the norm suggests that I value cooperation and tolerance, perhaps. Could go on and on but I don't see the point.

They say…what if they said something else? The problem with appealing to popularity is that popular opinion often gets it wrong.

In the case of rape, I suppose that it would need to be a proven case of rape, like a criminal conviction?

None of that is up to me.

Regarding age, you're pro-life for adults? What's the age cutoff?

I wouldn’t use the terms pro-life or pro-choice, both of which are stupid. The debate is around the act of abortion in particular, not choices or life general. I prefer the terms pro or anti-abortion, none of which applies elsewhere. I am anti-abortion.

If I were able to vote on it, I guess that I'd go along with 98.3% of the population, around 16 weeks.

What do your principles say? Going along with what is popular is fine and all but that could all change.

No, what I consider a valid excuse for abortion is if the unborn is a product of rape or if the mother is too young or if the fetus is malformed.

What are your own views on the matter?

I would not consider it murder because there is a valid excuse for it. It is homicide by definition, though. I’m sure most people disapprove of homicide. What about you?

One can disapprove of an act while at the same time disapprove of any act that would infringe on another’s right to choose to act in such a way. Disapproving is not infringing on anyone’s choices, I’m afraid, so your statist friends don’t have much to go on.

As others have mentioned a woman ought to do whatever she wants with her own life and body. The moral standard for me is bodily autonomy and absolute freedom, so long as it does not interfere with the bodily autonomy and absolute freedom of anyone else. The question of abortion, though, is does she have the right to do what she wants to the life and body of the unborn?

As far as i can tell, the task of the pro-abortionists has been to diminish and belittle in the conscience the body of the unborn. To kill it with a clean conscience, for example, one must sneak in and sever its life before this or that occurs, before it has feelings or a heartbeat. At least then will the killer be satisfied with herself and her humanity. Also, the unborn is not autonomous, but entirely dependent. Bodily autonomy is not a question until it is, until the unborn itself becomes autonomous. Rather, a foetus is more like a parasite or an organ, a mere extension of the mother, despite having its own DNA. But at what point in another's life does autonomy occur, and is killing a child before that occurs remain the right of the mother to kill her own? I'm not so sure.

In the end, I carry a principle that conflicts with itself. So I have to quell the dissonance and remain satisfied that it isn't up to me wether someone wants to kill the life growing inside of her. I leave that to her, but will always remember that they are killing a life that is not their own, and will judge accordingly.

Consciousness can be reduced to the body for the simple reason it cannot be reduced to anything else. In fact, it has to be reduced to the body for the notion of consciousness to make any sense in the first place. When we discern whether someone is conscious or not we examine the body. When we use the term "conscious" we are describing bodies. And since no other object, substance, or thing exists in the body but the body, save for perhaps some flora or food waste, it ought not be reduced to anything else and it ought not be inflated to anything else. They might try to reduce it to the flora, I suppose, but I think that task would turn out to be silly indeed.

One of the problems with anti-physicalism is not only that they cannot reduce it to anything, but that they refuse to, and this is a clear indication that the project is doomed. It's just a surprise that it's taking so long.

For years decline in media trust has trended downward, especially among registered republicans. https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2021/08/30/partisan-divides-in-media-trust-widen-driven-by-a-decline-among-republicans/.
I think it’s fine to dismiss people because the enjoy a Murdoch production more so than a Microsoft and General Electric one, and sometimes rightfully so, but I think these numbers indicate that some are more beholden to corporate or state press than the others.

For Trump voters in particular, they were witness to one of the greatest feats of yellow journalism in the country’s history. Here’s a good analysis per the folks at Columbia Journalism Review.

Given this one can understand how one can fall prey to conspiracy theories. People trust who they trust, and more often than not they’ll trust Uncle Buck before they trust some state-run or state-influenced mouthpiece. The institutions that have tasked themselves with informing the public have failed in that regard.

I didn't say that it is a prerequisite to forming right beliefs in particular or forming beliefs in general. I said it is required to forming one's own beliefs.

If one doesn't understand rhetoric, for example, one doesn't understand the methods through which people try to use fallacious techniques to try to influence how you think. One learns to avoid appeals to authority or emotion, for example, which is common in propaganda. One can rely on one's own thoughts, language, and judgements, or whatever else is built on this foundation.

It's just the theory that one cannot understand how language can be used against you until one understands how to use language.

I said it was a foundation, not all you need. The idea is that one will be better equipped to navigate his own language and thought along with that of others. Not everyone is endowed with such a foundation because not everyone has had any classical education. Rather, they’ve been taught what to think, not how to think in state education, which is little different than indoctrination in my opinion.

A foundation in how to think is a prerequisite to forming one’s own beliefs. A base understanding in grammar, logic, and rhetoric suffices in this regard. Grammar is the mechanics of language. Logic is the mechanics of thought. Rhetoric is the application of both to language. With this simple foundation one can see quickly through the propaganda.