By artificial I mean man made rather than occurring naturally. No contradiction there.

For those interested, the house just voted to send articles of impeachment to the senate. The show trial continues after a hiatus.

Of course sex can be changed, but these changes would be wholly artificial.

(I gather that you work at a NGO or a non-profit. Most capitalists, a cursed lot, wouldn't waste company time on this crap.).

You'd be surprised. Woke capitalism is good money.

I 100% agree with you, but the super social justice warriors think that just being white makes you racist, just being male makes you sexist,sometimes even just being straight makes you homophobic and just being cis makes you transphobic. They are wrong, they also beleive that not treating minorities of any kind like special little snowflakes you are (insert minority here)phobic, and a s three minorities, no just treat me like a normal person, thanks.

Racists span the color spectrum. There is a pernicious group-think in it. People want to cling to their race, perhaps so they can claim someone else’s achievements or victim hood as their own. It saves them from the necessarily time consuming work of thinking and passing judgement on the level of an individual. One dissolves his individuality in an amorphous, disparate group, identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests.

I’ve already provided you exculpatory evidence which you dismissed and/or pooh-poohed. I attempted to refute your opinion on the facts, but when I did so you claimed I was incapable of having a reasonable discussion, which suspiciously allowed you to avoid my arguments entirely.

That’s false, I did not dismiss “the facts” because they were partisan or expressed by democrats, but because they did not suggest any criminal intent or wrong doing or criminal activity. This is evidenced by my direct response to your list of facts, which you then used to accuse me of “denying the obvious”. I explicitly asked for evidence of motivations, ie any statement from the accused that might suggest he wanted investigations into political opponents so as to influence the 2020 elections, and your “facts” provided nothing of the sort.

It was you who accused me of writing things that sounded like I got it from Hannity and Levin, none of whom I watch, and which I proved to be false by showing where I actually heard the idea: the Wallstreet Journal Editorial Board. The partisan bickering was yours all along.

I think the irony here is that their insistence that their “whiteness” is harmful is itself a form of white supremacy. They see themselves and their “whiteness” as a force supreme and primary to other similar qualia. So it’s taking white supremacy and attempting to run with it in another direction.

Yes, his art criticism and defense of beauty were very important to me. I’m not a religious man but he showed me that I need not be spiritually impoverished because of it, that I need not vanquish the sacred and the beautiful because I do not believe in gods. He reminded me that with beauty life can be worth living.

And yet if I want to physically assault another human, it is easy...what am I missing? I can easily violate their sovereignty...? You say I have no control...but if I am significantly physically stronger than you, I can literally control you for as long as I care to. I can't make you cure cancer, but I can certainly make you go to the store (as I drag you there).

Yes, you can attempt to violate someone’s sovereignty through violence and coercion. But even so they would need to acquiesce to your demands and willingly give you what you want. They could also spit in your face and defy you to the bitter end. This is because you have no authority over their bodies and actions.

I don't need anyone to stand still to violate their sovereignty. And "choosing" is only one limited aspect of sovereignty. Absolute sovereignty would mean no one (and no-thing) has power over my body but myself. A hurricane could take away my sovereignty just as any human could. Aren't their millions of bacteria living in my body? Did I approve their residence? Even if we suggest that most of those are helpful, I still want the bad ones out.

Yes, only you have power over your body. Even if you were chained to a wall and left for dead you could still resist any impositions. Only you are responsible for your actions. Only you can choose how to live your life.

Nice try, but I noted the need to make an effort to understand all the available facts, whereas Trump clearly ignores evidence when making his accusations. Besides, it's one thing to make a private judgment and quite another to publicly defame someone with an accusation.

Nice try but you just publicly stated why you assume his guilt, and did so while suppressing exculpatory evidence, dismissing the testimony of the accused and other witnesses with a hand wave while accepting as faith the testimony of the accusers. Believe it or not but there are strong reasons why this sort of reasoning is unacceptable in criminal trials.

A “best explanation” may be plausible, but not necessarily correct, especially when these “facts” are derived from a one-sided, political show trial and not any sober and fair examination.

Good read, thanks for writing that.

A lot of morality is traditional. The wisdom of generations attest to their merits and faults in a process that develops an ethics over time, a sort of historical trial and error. In that sense it is organic. There is an effort at the individual level to act out these ethics whether by habit or societal pressure, but there is still this traditional relationship between the dead, the living, and the yet to be born. For the individual it might be best to cultivate rather than destroy these traditions.

I suppose to avoid all out war one ethics may best supersede another through leading by example rather than imposing an ethics by force.

The argument is that infinite regresses are impossible. So that leads to there must only be finite regresses in reality. At the base of each such regress, there must be an uncaused cause; there is no other logical explanation.

To be uncaused means to be beyond time (there is no 'before' for a timeless thing - it has no cause).

There are quite a few ways to show that time must have a start (eg do you believe a greater than finite number of days has elapsed?) and if that is true, then logic points to the reality of something atemporal.

I’m aware of the argument but I do not see how it makes the case that infinite regresses are impossible. A first element presupposes finitude, so why would we apply it to an infinite regress? I agree that a finite regress would require a first element, but disagree that an infinite regress does.

That's laughable to call a presumption of innocence a "precious human right, considering your support for President who so frequently accuses people of crimes with little or no basis.

The presumption of innocence is a legal standard in a criminal trial. It's an appropriate standard for that, because of the consequences of conviction. That doesn't mean it's a good, general epistemic standard. Imagine being on the jury of an alleged child molester. You decide the evidence did not rise to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" level, and because of your decision he's acquitted. Would you consider hiring this person to babysit your children? Would you even want that person living nearby? If not, what became of your presumption of innocence?

We are within our epistemic rights to judge people on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence if we've made an effort to understand all the available facts.

Likewise, considering your disdain for the president, I find it surprising you adopt his thinking.

It is a good standard because one cannot correctly judge if another is guilty until it is proven. Assuming innocence could be wrong, of course, but it is at least just. Assuming guilt is unjust.

Thanks for the explanation.

So then to what do we owe the reality of the first element, a first tuner, if not an anterior one? Sure a finite regress all elements owe their reality to the first element, but I cannot see how that is true of an infinite one.

Why would an infinite causal regress require a first element for it to exist?

Regarding mutilation it’s a tough question. The word has very negative connotations, and applying it to surgical modifications might cast certain aspersions on transgender individuals and their choices, which in my opinion should be accommodated. But then again, to the extent that one wants to disfigure and modify his body through surgical means so as to appear a certain way, mutilation is an apt term. It can apply to all types of body modifications such cosmetic surgery, tattoos and piercings, so you wouldn’t necessarily be in bad company.

Is it necessary for uncaused causes to be possible for libertarian free will to be possible?
Can anyone here present a theory of causation that allows for libertarian free will?

I think actions must be self-caused in order to allow free will. This is where the debate around free will gets murky for me, because it always leads me to think the notion of free will is a 1-to-1 ratio with the body, and it becomes more a problem of identity. if it isn’t me causing my heart to beat, then what is causing my heart to beat? In the sense that my body—me—is regulating every process therein, from the heart beat to the secretion of hormones, it could be said I am controlling, “willing”, each and every action I perform.

You’d have to eschew the presumption of innocence, a precious human right, and adopt the presumption of guilt, a mark of tyranny, for any of that to be the case. There are reasonable doubts in every one of those matters.

Actually it is a truth that many white men are pseudo-Christian Tump supporters who own AR-15s. Most people living in the US know this.

Likewise, there certainly were noble tribes. The tribe that greeted Christopher Columbus welcomed him and his crew only to be later slaughtered or enslaved by Columbus.

First it’s “all white men” are such and such, then it’s “many”. This is the kind of logic required to sell nonsense.

The best you could say is that that particular tribe was hospitable or welcoming, virtues that are not limited to any one religion.

That’s like saying all white men are pseudo-Christian Trump supporters who own AR-15s is a truth.

Yes, the noble savage is stupid for the same reason.

Yawn

The noble (Christian?) savage is a myth.

I live near a tribe that once attacked neighboring tribes so as to make slaves of their women and children.

You know my answer, Tim. No, he is not a murderer. No, he is not a criminal.

I may be too literal, but I am struggling with this too. I guess you mean legal sovereignty over their own body? Only an omni-everything god could have absolute authority over their own body. I can walk around with a sword just lopping off sections of people's bodies. I would end the day dead or in jail, but that doesn't deny the fact that those people had no bodily sovereignty in that example. I also find natural rights to be nonsense (just to give you the freedom to ignore me if you don't want to get into that :smile:)

Just so I can understand the idea, what would be an example of an individual asserting bodily sovereignty? I can think of abortion (and even that asserts one bodily sovereignty at the expense of another), but very little else.

I mean absolute, natural sovereignty. You have no control, authority, or responsibility for my body, my actions, my choices. You cannot make people choose to stand still while being attacked anymore than they can make you choose to attack them.

I have my ups and downs with Sartre, but he did engage with that world.

There certainly are exceptions. But I think better philosophers plant the seeds rather than physically engage with it. Rousseau or Marx for example.

I would think most philosophers would be against activism given the mob mentality it often results in, but they would in their own way oppose ideas and events they disagreed with, perhaps providing fuel for activism.

It doesn't make sense unless you're planning to colonize the area. Just let their protests echo away in silence too (unless you're an American politician and you can get away with a condescending sound bite.

There is no point in protesting an unjust government, then, if no one is watching.

If that were true, there would be no cases of guilt and pardon, and/or guilt and no accountability. There are such cases. Therefore, the belief is false.

If there are such cases, maybe provide an example.

It makes much more sense to stand with those protesting injustice and tyranny, and to let those privileged westerners protesting their feelings echo away in silence.

Nice essay.

But I believe humans lack the capacity to organize any significant conspiracy that wouldn’t result in their jailing or demise. People have consciences, differing wants, motives, and fears, that any cabal is doomed from the outset.

Trump stands with the Iranian people as they protest their government at great risk to their own lives.

The world ignored the murder of 1500 Iranian protesters back in late 2019, many of them becoming de facto supporters of the murderous regime during the recent conflict, because to do otherwise would be to stand with their mortal enemy.

You may be exaggerating to make a point...but this makes very little sense? So every state in America should seek independence? What about each city within those states? If we continue to follow this logic, every human would end up being their own state (or dead)? "Always" is always problematic, hehe.

I was speaking more in terms of national sovereignty, not so much state or municipal sovereignty. But I think some of the same principles might apply to those kinds of territories and polities. I fully believe in individual sovereignty insofar as one should have sovereignty over his own body.

Heightening tensions is one thing, shooting down civilian aircraft is quite another. Iranians have directly killed more Iranians during this period.

The trouble with Brexit bias, many of us don't know if it is right, or wrong. Was it the right thing to do, is it better for our country, is the EU going to collapse in debt, or are we. When one is so uncertain to then have xenophobic populism etc shoved down your throat doesn't feel right either way.

Well unless you're certain it was the right thing to do, in which case everything is rosy. But that can be nothing more than a wing and a prayer, because no one really knows if it was the right thing to do and if they think it was they are being deceitful in some way.

Reasserting one’s sovereignty is always the right thing to do. The EU is more a centralized technocracy which itself deals only with political elites. There is no popular vote, no democracy. I think the instinct for democratic choice and the entrenched reliance on common law procedures has led to a deep suspicion of the European ideal.

I suspect much of that is the same with the election of Trump. On the one hand he is flippant of the technocrats, while on the other swayed by the people and popular opinion. I think in both cases many people wanted to regain a sense of lost and stolen power, as they watch more and more of it being allocated in the hands of bureaucrats and elites.

Iran finally admits it shot down the jet. Incompetence.

I think you’re right, but as far as I can tell the video shows the projectile hurtling towards the plane, which continued to fly after being struck.

This video shows what appears to be a missile hitting the plane.

Imagine if they had nuclear weapons.

I suspect they’d blow themselves up.

Question: why do we talk about Trump, but not Putin's persecution of homosexuals or Chinese concentration camps?

I have always said it’s a matter of privilege. Many westerners are so far removed from tyranny and injustice that only Trump’s bad words are able to penetrate the solipsistic cocoons in which they’ve shielded themselves.

Not only that but I suspect that talking about Trump in a certain way allows the morally bankrupt to appear moral. Think of someone like Harvey Weinstein marching in those anti-Trump women’s marches in 2017. It’s virtue signalling.

So it looks (with the airplane accident). It happens with GBAD (ground based air defence) when it's put to highest alert. They start shooting everything moving in the air and identify targets later.

Similar thing happened with the downing of MH-17. Or earlier with the downing of Iran Air 655 by USS Vincennes (which mistook a civil passenger aircraft for an Iranian F-14).

What is now interesting to see how Iran handles the incident and of course we have to look what the investigation turns out. If it was an accidental downing, Iran can opt either to take the line that President Reagan did with Iran Air 655 and deeply regret the accident OR (which is more likely) take the "asshole-approach" that the Russians did with MH-17 and deny, deny and deny and then blame it on your opponent and not care about overwhelming evidence on the contrary.

If Iran doesn’t hand over the black boxes or let Canada investigate the crash perhaps it will show the world that, no, Iran does not want to play nice with the international community. Anyways it will be interesting.

It looks like evidence is pointing to Iran shooting down a Ukrainian aircraft filled with Iranian, Canadian and Ukrainian civilians. Not a good look, especially after the annihilation of Soleimani, the deaths of funeral-goers, and the bombing of Iraq. Iran is incompetent.

He backed out of a horrible deal with Iran because it lifted important sanctions and allowed them to continue their ballistic missile program, which was ultimately used to fire on Iraq just days ago. It never barred Iranian aggression in the Middle East and had the “sunset provisions”, which Pompeo contends will lead to a frightening nuclear arms race in the Middle East when those provisions run out,

Despite the JCPOA, Iran has acquired the largest and most diverse missile force in the Middle East. So since backing out of the deal Trump has been trying to pressure Iran into negotiations (or its own collapse) by reimposing those sanctions.



If they don’t negotiate then sanctions will not be lifted and they will descend further into economic and societal collapse. I suspect his is what Pompeo wants given the demands of the administration’s new strategy in Iran.

It was a misstep to sign the JCPOA because it never barred ballistic missile proliferation and Iranian aggression in the Middle East, which led us to this little flare up.