Rightists responded (mostly with prayer and inspiration to engage in more speech). — Fire Ologist

The head of the FCC said "we can do this the easy way or the hard way" and Jimmy Kimmel was suspended. Even Ted Cruz thought it went too far. It's not rioting, but for the federal government to put pressure on a network to remove a comedian is chilling in its own way.

Perhaps there's already an AGI and it's starting a pro-ai psyops campaign to influence public opinion in message boards like this.

Trump is clearly highly political and cares deeply about political issues. — AmadeusD

That's funny, I just had this same discussion with my wife. She said Trump cares nothing except for furthering his own ego needs. He would be a Bernie-bro open borders socialist if he thought that would give him power and narcissistic supply. I argued he has some core beliefs. If Trump had complete power, Trumplandia would be very right-wing conservative. She said that's only because right-wing authoratarianism (sp) appeals to his ego. I still don't know if she's right. I think she might be.

A fly evading a swat is another. — noAxioms

Is there something it's like to be a fly evading a swat? How do we know? How could we ever find out? Isn't the inability to answer those questions a "hard problem"?

That it has become popular as a "solution" to the Fine Tuning Problem to me is sort of baffling. To my mind, it represents an essentially religious commitment to the essentially aesthetic ideals of "naturalism" to posit "everything possible happens" as a solution to the threat of life seeming vanishingly unlikely otherwise. — Count Timothy von Icarus

But if we don't live in a sufficiently large multiverse, doesn't fine-tuning become a serious problem for the person favoring naturalism? The best science at the moment is that we beat some very long odds just being in a universe that supports life.

Speaking of Hume, if I witness what appears to be a miracle, which explanation is more rational?

Suppose I am standing before a person who says “Let there be fish!” and, before my eyes, dozens of fish appear out of nowhere. I’ve eliminated other possibilities: it’s not a magic trick, there’s a large crowd of people with me seeing the same thing, and I’m not hallucinating. Suppose I've narrowed it down to two remaining explanations:

A genuine miracle is occurring — a supernatural violation of natural laws, or I am probably in a universe (within an infinite multiverse) where an extraordinarily improbable natural fluctuation — say, a “Boltzmann fish” scenario — has spontaneously produced the fish.

If I I think I probably live in a multiverse, which explanation would Hume think I should favor?

I'm talking about the activity that perceives, retrieves stored information, weighs multiple options and chooses one over the others — Patterner

Isn't weighing options and choosing among them a mindful activity? How does that work on a physical basis alone?

No, they're not ridiculous.

I don't see why it would be immoral unless one had views similar to antinatilism.

Is the imposition of this kind of specific life in new areas of the universe any more morally questionable than the impositions of any kind of life anywhere? — Nils Loc

That's a good question. Are we talking about imposing life on a barren planet or "overriding" the life that would have evolved on a life-bearing planet with life of our choosing?

Well, I was rushing to get my kids back from recess and made some clearly wrong assumptions.

You're right. This is probably the sorriest thread I ever started here.

I'm really not sure what you're asking. — Patterner

You think the mind if a process, right, an action not a thing. Well, are ideas processes to?

Sometimes it’s hard to remember that something that seems completely obvious to one person is not even imaginable for another. — T Clark

The common usage of "mind" though is that it is a noun that adjectives apply to.

No. I'm trying to think of it that way now, but not having any luck. — Patterner

What about ideas in your mind? Do you think those are physical processes? Imagine a sunset. Isn't what you're imagining a thing?

I believe the idea is that the mind is a physical process. It's a verb. As is a basketball game. What color is a basketball game? How much does it weigh? How big is it? — Patterner

But isn't your intuition that your mind is also a thing that you can ascribe qualities to?

Your mind is a physical system? What color is it? How much does it weigh? How big is it?

The destruction of "Nazi Germany" is not the same as the systematic hunting down of anyone associated with "Hamas" to the point that it's OK to kill unarmed civilians and topple down Hospitals or civilian living quarters or stop aid from coming in to starve out anyone that might be associated in order to take over the land. — Moliere

That is different than hunting down and killing Hamas. I have no problem eliminating Hamas if it can be done without collateral damage or without the goal of stealing land. I see your point that Israel's goal is not just the elimination of Hamas at this point, and they are unable to do it without killing huge numbers of innocents, and what they are doing my fall under the definition of genocide.

That'd count as an example of "genocide": MW: "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group" — Moliere

Then that is not a good definition of genocide. Sometimes political groups need to be systematically destroyed. If the destruction of Nazi Germany is genocide then nothing is genocide.

I'm not happy he's dead, but I'm not upset about it either. There's some reporting the shooter had a transgender partner. Trans people have been banned from the military and the DOJ is talking about restricting them from owning guns. How much abuse can a community take before someone snaps and takes out a particularly vile trans bully? Conservatives have this quaint idea that queers and liberals and liberal queers don't have guns and don't know how to use them.

I've noticed that everyone around me is happy Kirk is dead, not happy that people are going around shooting each other, just happy one jackass is gone. — frank

The attitude from liberals I know is amusement over the irony of Kirk being one of the shooting deaths that are "worth it" to keep the 2nd amendment alive.

What about revoking visas from people expressing support for Palestinians?

The point was made that Trump was stoking fear. You responded that sometimes fear of the other is "proper and rational". Trump stokes fears of immigrants, correct? Should I be afraid immigrants? Am I being irrational because I'm not afraid of them?

There are plenty of times in history where 'fear of the other' is the proper, rational response. — BitconnectCarlos

Is this one of those times? Trump stokes fears of immigrants. I live in California. I interact with immigrants all the time. Many of my students' parents are immigrants. Is the rational response to be afraid of these people?

Do you think Hegseth would be doing that if it David Hogg had been assassinated?

Our brains could be simulated by a binary computer. Would a simulated brain be conscious?

Also, this has nothing to do with Trump. — Outlander

“The way that Brazil has treated former President Bolsonaro, a Highly Respected Leader throughout the World during his Term, including by the United States, is an international disgrace. This Trial should not be taking place. It is a Witch Hunt that should end IMMEDIATELY!” Trump said in a letter that he sent to Brazil’s president, who is widely known as Lula, and posted to Truth Social on July 9.

Trump’s letter went on to tie Bolsonaro’s prosecution and de Moraes’ social media rulings to the tariffs he’d later impose: “Due in part to Brazil’s insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans (as lately illustrated by the Brazilian Supreme Court, which has issued hundreds of SECRET and UNLAWFUL Censorship Orders to U.S. Social Media platforms, threatening them with Millions of Dollars in Fines and Eviction from the Brazilian Social Media market), starting on August 1, 2025, we will charge Brazil a Tariff of 50% on any and all Brazilian products sent into the United States.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/trump-brazilian-products-tariffs-bolsonaro-rcna222534

I don't know if he was racist, but his transphobia, imo, was just as bad.

https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/tpusas-charlie-kirk-trans-people

That's the whole schtick, ": But." The 'but' is the whole point here, and the colon is apt. The rest is just the necessary window dressing needed to get to the 'but'. The caveat on not deserving murder is also pretty wild.

"Fucked up" is the correct description here. — Leontiskos

You ever see the second Die Hard movie? Bruce Willis has to wear a sandwich board saying "I hate n******" in a predominately black neighborhood or a bomb goes off. So let's say some racist jerk decides to do that and walk around a predominately black neighborhood and someone shoots him dead. Are you really going to object if someone says, "Yeah, it's fucked up that he got shot...BUT". Isn't someone who does that and gets killed get put in the category of "play stupid games, win stupid prizes"? Or "fuck around and find out"?

Charlie Kirk, to me, was the equivalent of the guy walking around with the "I hate *******" sandwich board. Yeah, it's sad he got killed, but...karma's a bitch. The universe has a sense of irony.

Spare us the lecture, Hanover. The shooter is still at large. This is a philosophy forum. Of course we're going to navel gaze.

It's not unheard of. Hinkley shot Reagan to impress Jodi Foster. We still don't have a clear motive on why the Trump shooter did what he did. Charles Whitman had a brain tumor.

It is the same in the “sacrifice” regard. The trade off of lives is analogous, not the reasons why or even what those lives are traded for. We are willing to trade lives, if it is a problem to trade lives (for anything… I think) then cars are a much better place to start than guns numbers wise.
Anyway, obviously I didnt state the analogy clearly enough and I hope that even if you disagree its at least more clear what I meant. — DingoJones

Could the analogy be to a prohibition era bootlegger who goes around touting the benefits of alcohol, says a certain number of alcohol-related deaths are "worth it" so we can freely drink, and then gets nailed by a drunk driver?

Killing doesn't change anything. Not really. Not after a time. — Outlander

I think this is wrong. Killing thousands of British soldiers year after year certainly changed things in the 1770's. Same with Vietnamese killing Americans, Afghanistans killing Russians, etc.

Which is what brought me to the question: If you can't outvote Trump, et al., what's the other option? — Moliere

What do you do if Trump&co declare martial law and suspend elections? And then try to collect all the guns from registered Democrats and suspected LGBTQ people?

Im making an analogy about the trade-off for lives, in that sense cars and guns are analogous. — DingoJones

In the case of cars, we're willing to accept a certain amount of deaths to drive at speeds that make cars economically viable. Nobody would drive a car at 5mph on the freeway. We sacrifice safety for efficiency.

How is that the same with guns?

Yet the question is -- the ballot or the bullet? How do we justify each position, philosophically? — Moliere

You have to listen to your gut, I guess. Is a slave justified in killing the entire master's family if it means he'll be able to get a decent chance to escape? Probably. Would the Jews in Nazi Germany have been justified in gunning down every government official they came across? Certainly. If this country bans abortion entirely and a government official tries to step between a woman and the sympathetic doctor about to perform the abortion and she has a gun? I would support her using deadly force.

My point with that analogy was specifically about accepting some deaths as a trade off for freedom to have a gun. We do the exact same thing with cars, we accept that some people (many more than gun deaths actually) are going to die as a trade off for our speed limits and traffic volume (or as a trade off for the freedom to drive and if you prefer). — DingoJones

Again, because cars are essential for many people in this society. Driving is inherently dangerous and we accept the risks because cars are so necessary for so many. That's not analogous to guns.

Nick Fuentes hated Kirk and he has a small army of white nationalist thugs.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/nick-fuentes-slams-charlie-kirk-over-support-for-israel/id390071758?i=1000723989144

Are you sure it wasn't one of them?

"I think it's worth it. I think it's worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights."
— RogueAI

Not reasonable statement? Replace “guns” with “cars”. Still unreasonable? — DingoJones

I need my car to go to work and the store and other things. I don't need my gun for anything, except to assuage my irrational fear that someone will break in and I'll be unarmed.

The irony isnt lost on me, but I think Kirk would 100% include his own death as part of that acceptable trade off. — DingoJones

Really? You think so? You think if an angel came down and said, "Charlie, I can make this assassin miss you be a hair, or you can be gunned down and leave your wife and kids behind and you can become a martyr for the 2nd amendment. What shall it be?" Charlie would have picked martyr?

Say what you want about Kirk, he did not lack conviction. To the point above, we certainly accept that trade off with driving vehicles dont we? Vehicle accidents kill more than guns, why dont we ban cars? Or make everyone drive 5mph? And thats just for our convenience, there are many who think right to bear arms is much more important.

Again, cars have important uses outside of killing things.