:fire:"pro-life" folks ... who are also ... pro-death penalty... seek to control (reverse) demographic trends by controlling women's bodies ...
—180 Proof
Absolutely spot on! And I'm not American.
I had similar thoughts when I read the shocking Guardian article re Capital punishment, yesterday.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/935435
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/29/america-executions-death-penalty — Amity
:rofl: Stunning ignorance. :lol:Pandeism (all is spirit) and Materialism (all is matter) — Gnomon
No I didn't. I asked you to philosophically consider (my proposed summaries of monist-immanent) pandeism & acosmism as alternatives to (dualist-transcendent) deism.You asked me to reply to comments that you had previously made. — Brendan Golledge
That's almost as obscenely vile as Israeli apartheid that everyday oppresses non-Jews especially in the Occupied Territories, West Bank & Gaza. Police (everywhere) should "conscientiously object" to protecting only Official Israeli spaces (e.g. consulates, embassies, government offices, businesses, etc) instead. Mass murderers, no matter how triumphant they are in the moment, reap what they fucking sow. :fire: :mask:One can now apparently be a "conscientious objector" re: providing security for Jewish spaces — BitconnectCarlos
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorshipI'm not sure what worship is — bert1
I think the place to start is by exercising our 'massively distributed' modes of agency in solidarity to struggle against political-economic-cultural systems which minmize and/or eliminate the social agency of any humans anywhere possible for us to do so. In other words, to the degree we humans are emancipatory and disutilitarian with respect to all humans (as well as non-human species) is the degree to which, imo, we become more than "just objects" (i.e. atomized beasts of burden, cattle, sheep, etc). :death: :flower:How can we humans avoid being just objects? — Angelo Cannata
Yes and no. The latter opposes – struggles against – the inhumane and counter-productive (i.e. destabilizing) excesses – strategic blindness – of the former.is it geopolitical and historical reasoning that is blind to universal humanitarian concerns or is it universal humanitarian concerns that are blind to geopolitical and historical reasoning?
As an American, my two bits: "pro life" folks, especially those who are also pro-guns, pro-death penalty, pro-voter suppression & anti-immigration / ethno-nationalist, seek to control (reverse) demographic trends by controlling women's bodies and use 'Bronze Age superstitions' (rather than modern science / medicine) to 'justify' their movement. :mask:Abortion - Why are people pro life? — Samlw
:smirk: :up:↪Shawn I think it's like a preschooler asking if her parents also hate the monster in her closet tormententing her. For some it goes further; asking why her supposedly loving parents allow monsters to occupy her closet — ENOAH
According to Genesis, God created Adam and Eve with free will too weak to resist temptation and not disobey. God also created the serpent and the Tree of Knowledge. Adam and Eve are set up to fail by God then, when they do fail, God punishes them for His failure to make their free wills strong enough as well as for His failure to tell them that He, not the forbidden fruit, would cause them to die (i.e. denied access by God to the fruit of the Tree of Life). Adam and Eve didn't Fall, God set the trap for them and all of their descendants; thus, Evil was created – "allowed" – by God in the first book of the Torah. :fire: :eyes: :pray:God didn't allow anything. — javi2541997
If so, then why call it "God"? (Epicurus)One solution to that problem is divest God of omnipotence. — BC
:chin:According to the Bible, God very much dislikes evil in its various forms. — BC
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. — Isaiah 45:7, KJV
But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? — Job 2:10, KJV
Simply, like footprints in sand on a beach, "the statue" (pattern) is a secondary quality and "the clay" (material) is a primary quality; thus, unlike the latter, the former is not physically conserved.How are the clay and the statue related? — frank
:roll:Approximation can be incomplete ... — ucarr
Another non sequitur.Reification has only a weak form under strategic incompleteness because no systems are finalized into hard boundaries.
Ad hominem. Besides, I'm not a "deist" and do not espouse "deism".your Deist god ...
I have neither claimed nor implied that "existence" is/was "initiated".... to initiate existence
How do you know that what you believe in is true if you can't express it? — Manuel
:smirk:↪Tarskian Yes, yes, all that. So what? Give an example of one of these unstatable true sentences... — Banno
You have not shown that this is the case (i.e. a belief that is neither justified nor true).The nature of reality is simply like that. — Tarskian
Perhaps your OP topic only indicates that "the epistemic JTB account" is inadequate in some way.If you look at the epistemic JTB account for knowledge as a justified true belief ... — Tarskian
23Sept24 - $12.15 per share :down:NASDAQ (DJT) :rofl:
19Sept24 - $14.70 per share
(NASDAQ 18,013.98) — 180 Proof
Assuming this statement is true, what do you think is its philosophical significance?The overwhelmingly vast majority of truth cannot be expressed by language — Tarskian
Fyi: I derive 'necessary non-contingency' of existence (i.e. no-things) from the "metaphysics" of classical atomism (re: void) that predates Aristotlean 'substance' by a few centuries, Christianity by several centuries, and Anselm's 'necessary being' by about a millennium and a half.Christian metaphysics — Bodhy
:up:PS But yeah, antinatalism for sure. — SophistiCat
Oh yes, he "tried" this "modern idea" like a few others, iirc: Laozi-Zhuangzi, Heraclitus, Socrates, Pyrrho, Epicurus-Lucretius, Seneca-Epictetus, Sextus Empiricus ... Montaigne, Spinoza, Hume, Hegel, Nietzsche, Peirce-Dewey, Wittgenstein et al.What Heidegger tried to do was to root thinking in practice, which is a rather modern idea. — Tobias
:100:How could there possibly be nothing? [ ... ] Not even a quantum vacuum. What does that even mean? — T Clark
