Peterson's wife was over seven months pregnant at the time, at which point the fetus would have been viable, so I don't necessarily disagree that the 2nd degree murder verdict isn't valid. However, over 95% of abortions in America occur prior to 20 weeks of gestation. So in the overwhelming majority of abortion procedures, no, it is not murder.

Let's assume that abortion is morally equivalent to murder. — Ronin3000

"Murder" is a legal term for the unlawful killing of a person. We should not assume that an inchoate fetus is isomorphic to a person.

I can reply more in depth tomorrow because I'm getting ready for bed, but 1) Clinton won the popular vote by 3 million, so it's not quite right to say her election "failed" in regards to ideology (strategy is another thing) 2) a secular Jewish Atheist candidate did exceedingly well, despite an anti-corporate message, and I'd argue he could have defeated Trump overall 3) I didn't say it "failed", I said it has exhausted itself, which leads me to 4) most notably, the majority of major legislature put forth by the Republicans is not going through, save for the tax cuts, which has always been beloved among conservatives. The public is not sold on immigration, the wall, etc. What are the conservative-leaning national projects the Republican party been putting forth? Seems like nothing much else.

EDIT: Actually I'm pretty sure this sums it up for me.

You said that free speech (the First Amendment) is under attack from the Left, despite the three branches of Government being controlled by conservatives/Republicans. I did not say or suggest that Government curtail freedom of speech, or that racist, misogynistic ideas must not be "expressed". I said they do not deserve being platformed, i.e. mainstream publications, college campuses, etc., should not welcome people with virulent, intolerant beliefs or opinions. Regardless, such views are nevertheless present on mainstream publications, and college campuses, so the idea that the Left is systematically destroying freedom of speech is pure hysteria. Given that the Republicans are in charge they have resorted to grasping at straws in order to make themselves seem like David vs. the illusory Goliath Left. Make a new thread if you'd like, because it's an interesting topic.

You honestly don't see the threat to free speech and free thought from the left? — fishfry

lol this talking point is nothing but a last gasp of a political philosophy which has exhausted its overton window ideas, and in doing so has enabled the platforming of anti-Semites, Islamophobes, racists, and misogynists, the ideas of which are market failures in the so-called marketplace of ideas.

I really cannot imagine the supreme court falling on the wrong side of this question. — VagabondSpectre

I would hope, and even assume so, but what a travesty that would be if the Conservative arm of the Supreme Court let tribalism and party loyalty supersede what would be an American constitutional crisis, and all because the Republicans refused to confirm Garland, purely through partisanism.

44 years ago the DOJ ruled that a President cannot pardon himself. The ability to do so places a President above the rule of law, which is preposterous in a democracy.

As for the notion that journalists take some equivalent of a Hippocratic oath that for the rest of their lives forbids them to participate in any deception for any reason whatsoever, that is simply ridiculous. — SophistiCat

As I've already stated, I made no such notion.

Not when the comment has a timestamp

But he did lie in order to create a story. That was the whole point, create a story in which his supposed death, which was widely reported, could help apprehend the would-be assassins. I don't think you can so easily separate Babchenko as a reporter vs. Babchenko as a citizen, given that it was the former occupation which placed a target on his head.

I never said or implied that there is a "suicide pact" for journalists. Even police officers or firefighters doesn't go into their respective fields thinking that they will likely die. My point is that journalists need to be committed to telling the truth, and sometimes they put their lives on the line for it.

Undercover Journalism is not ethically black and white, as the link you provided explicitly states. There are lines where some journalists have been unwilling to cross. And, more to the point, there is a tremendous difference between deceiving an organization, or some coterie, to disclose corruption that harms the public vs. deceiving the public, which is anathema to a journalist's duty.

The question that needs to be asked is: was the staged operation the only way to apprehend the criminals? I sincerely doubt that, and I think the public deception, and even worse, deceiving his wife and children, could have been avoided.

Tomorrow

The concern of the OP was whether this "fake news" story further eroded the integrity of the press, and I don't think it does because it wasn't orchestrated by the press nor was the press knowingly involved in the scheme. — Hanover

The ultimate problem was that the journalist, Babchenko, sacrificed truth in order to apprehend a criminal, which I think is a perversion of principled journalism, in which journalists put their lives on the line in order to report the truth. This is particularly problematic in a country like Ukraine. He also likely traumatized many people, including family and friends. That the reporter saved his own life, and the lives of others is speculation, but would-be assassins have been captured through other methods outside of staged murders. I'm sure other methods could have been used to apprehend the criminals.

I know this post is three months old, but I've never understood how a Christian could achieve a stable peace of mind when nearly any innocuous pleasure could be a one-way ticket to eternal damnation. Perhaps that's just my Jewish neurosis talking, but if I was truly believed in Christianity I would be profoundly anxious all the time.

Love Nick Drake. Pink Moon is one of my favorite albums.

This is an absurd characterization. Have you even read a book about liberalism by a liberal?

I'm bored. Where are the Trump sympathizers who want to defend this flagrant affront to human decency. Or we just gonna talk about Descartes for the umpteenth time?

Incels are men with terrible personalities, who use every other excuse under the sun to justify why they can't get laid, with the focal explanan being women. By the way, there is all the difference in the world between young men who are lonely, shy, introverted etc., and may have difficulty talking to women (or anyone) as a result, and those that fuel that loneliness into wrath and resentment and misogynistic narratives. And speaking of Jordan Peterson, he absolutely helps to fuel this.

Lol I meant "Development as Freedom"

The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism From Edmund Burke to Donald Trump by Corey Robin
Satantango by László Krasznahorkai

Throughout the Congressional hearing, Zuckerberg mechanically emphasized that Facebook's overarching mission was to "connect people". There is strong evidence, however, that Facebook's news-feed algorithm does not lend to that mission. I can't recall where I read it - but I saw a story of a women who became friends with someone from a gaming community. They friended each other on Facebook and would occasionally catch-up with each other through the platform. One day, the woman found out that her friend died from a terminal illness, and that the friend had posted about the illness a few times in the months leading up to his or her death. Despite it's purported mission to "connect people", the woman never saw any of the posts from her friend, although I guarantee she saw plenty of ads, sponsored posts, links to news articles, etc., because the actual mission of Facebook, along with most other prominent social media sites, is to monetize the user base.

In fact, the less you use Facebook, the less visible you are to others when you do post, effectively punishing you for not using Facebook enough.

Ah, so when confronted with statistics that are at variance to your armchair analysis, those surveyed must simply be liars. That's the precisely type of absurd obtuseness I've repeatedly come to expect from you, Buxtebuddha. I guess the real epidemic here is that boys in various developed countries are lying! I did read your post - a vexing experience as usual - and it's filled with indigent scrutiny including bullying ( "What's behavioral is the epidemic of bullying in middle and high schools", "I see the effects of bullying and the utterly toxic and psychologically warped environment that is now the prevailing habitat in schools across America") and some strain of millennial nihilism ("The world's just a fucking joke and a meme to kids of my generation"), while being at best dismissive ("The American obsession with guns is not behavioral", "I don't see a gun issue when shootings like the Texas one happen") and apathetic ("Ban guns" may sound easy, and there are many measures we can and ought to take, but whether it helps those individuals who do want to kill people as an act of revenge...I don't think so") because it A) ignores the indisputable fact that the preponderance of guns is the only correlative answer as to why American gun violence far outstrips that of other developed nations and B) misses the point entirely, because gun violence is not reducible to school shootings, but is an every day occurrence in America.

Toxic masculinity is a horseshit and repulsive idea employed by sexists like you who want to make predatory and abusive behavior singular to the male sex. A creep is a creep, but if you want to fit people into your own perverted categories, go right on ahead, just don't expect people to take you seriously when you do. — Buxtebuddha

Let's be clear: toxic masculinity does not preclude the fact that women can be also abusive, predatory, or creepy. These are not exclusive phenomenon. But you are hopelessly clueless if you cannot acknowledge the extremity of toxic masculinity in practice, including Isla Vista, his imitator, and now the recent Santa Fe shooting.

Yes, I'm sure Pagourtzis reads Mein Kampf, speaks fluent Bavarian German, has blonde hair and blue eyes, owns a Nazi Party membership booklet, yodels from the Alps, hates every Stein in the world... — Buxtebuddha

Ah, so any modern form of Nazism is innocuous, because it needs to fit a certain stereotype in a certain time period that not even Hitler himself measures up to. Breathtakingly brilliant.

Here are some things that you will hear when you sit down to dinner with the vanguard of the Intellectual Dark Web: There are fundamental biological differences between men and women. Free speech is under siege. Identity politics is a toxic ideology that is tearing American society apart. And we’re in a dangerous place if these ideas are considered “dark.”

This article caused quite a splash when it first appeared, and reactions have ranged from utter ridicule and derision to fanatic praise. While I doubt many, if any, of these people (which include Ben Shapiro, Jordan Peterson, Joe Rogan, Sam Harris, the digital magazine Quillette, Dave Rubin, Christina Sommers) have any meaningful impact in the Republican party, they are nevertheless extremely popular with hordes of mostly young, mostly male, mostly white, digital savvy demographics.

The American obsession with guns is not behavioral. What's behavioral is the epidemic of bullying in middle and high schools. This Texas kid is yet another example of someone who was teased, belittled, and ostracized, not only by classmates, but by staff and teachers, as well. And if the one report I read is correct, then the shooter picked who to shoot, sparing those students who were likely kind and didn't bully him.

Being a millennial myself, and having experienced all sorts of different schools in several states, I don't see a gun issue when shootings like the Texas one happen, I see the effects of bullying and the utterly toxic and psychologically warped environment that is now the prevailing habitat in schools across America. It's pernicious, and I've seen first hand how most students aren't willing to be better or to check their own behavior and how it affects others. The world's just a fucking joke and a meme to kids of my generation, and the consequences of their actions have no bearing on their behavior. It's sickening to me, and I get tired of seeing people blame guns and Nazis and whatever else when there are some seriously fucked up shit going on schools and other places that contribute hugely to people doing even more terrible things. — Buxtebuddha

Except bullying isn't an epidemic exclusive to American schools. In fact, boys ages 11-15, in nations such as Canada, Switzerland, France, and Ireland have reported being bullied more often than boys in the USA. The only epidemic exclusive to the USA is the virulent obsession with guns.

But in your eagerness to blame everything save for the weapons themselves, perhaps you missed the important detail that one of the victims of the Santa Fe High School shooter was a girl who repeatedly turned down the shooter's increasingly aggressive advancements, until she publicly stood up to him in class. She was killed the following week. She did not bully him. She merely told him no multiple times and he could not accept rejection. This is precisely the toxic masculinity that we often speak about on the Left, and women have every right to fear for their lives over it.

Also the shooter literally had images on Nazi symbols on his now deactivated social media accounts, so it seems weird that we can't literally blame Nazism when the proof is in the pudding.

Yeah we can't enact gun control in order to reduce gun violence because of a perverse idea that gun rights take priority over human lives.

Royalism is dumb

So how many fucking more times do we need to bring this damned thread up again?

Personally, I think President Moon Jae-in said this to placate Trump's infamous tantrums. China probably had more to do with this than Trump. But I guess we'll know when we know.

I first read this back when it was first published and loved it. It's always insightful when someone of a different identity, whether class-based, ethnic-based, religious-based,and, in this case, gender-based etc. can so effortlessly describe experiences that they've had, which are held in common among those of said identity, and, in doing so, rocks you to your core, for not having previously understood/experienced it yourself. It allows you to step into their shoes, empathize better, and hopefully, enable you to be a better, more thoughtful person.

This sudden 85 degree heatwave calls for beach-vibes.

Amazing.

No, clearly not. Who would ever think that? The only question is what to do with the poor bastards once the glorious revolution ushers in utopia. Boil 'em, mash 'em, stick 'em in a stew. We shall have to decide, comrades. — Thorongil

Curious that you've repeated this mantra interminably, despite conservatives holding all three branches of Government. The article questions the respectfulness of modern conservative ideas. It isn't questioning whether conservatives should be respected as dignified humans, or that their fundamental human rights should be scrapped. It's this crass ignorance, this hasty hyperbole of gulags and "glorious revolution", that is so profoundly stupid as to warrant dismissal and derision.

Curious as to what is respectable with conservatism as practiced; that with the three branches under their control, conservatives have moved forward in sapping wealth away from the poor and middle class to the extreme upper echelons of society. They will further deplete needed social services in the name of balancing the deficit which they increased through tax cuts. They have split immigrant families, and gleefully dismantled regulations that protect the environment and curtail climate change.

I wanna push some buttons so here is a recent New York Times article summarizing a recent study: Trump Voters Driven by Fear of Losing Status, Not Economic Anxiety, Study Finds

A study published on Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences...suggests that Trump voters weren’t driven by anger over the past, but rather fear of what may come. White, Christian and male voters, the study suggests, turned to Mr. Trump because they felt their status was at risk.

And an article that's more to the point: Conservatives Will Never Get the Respect They Crave. They Don’t Deserve It.

My previous question still stands.

A Hero Born by Jin Yong
Drawn and Quartered by Cioran (rereading)

You don't explain why "motivating passions" have "nothing directly to do with emotions". The examples provided by SEP, and quoted by you, e.g. desire, hope, fear, joy, grief seem 'emotionally' rooted to me, and just a few sentences above the portion you quote states, "According to Hume's theory of the mind, the passions (what we today would call emotions, feelings, and desires)..." so it seems to be a difference without a distinction to me, given that they are distinguished from reason, by Hume.

But conversations centered around an 18th century philosopher can only get us 21st century folk so far. As modern cognitive scientists have found, emotions and feeling are the driving motivators for action, and so it behooves us to understand them better, in order to more "rationally" integrate them in ethical theories, rather than treat them as mutually exclusive categories.

And I don't think many people would dispute that circumstances are important when making moral decisions, but it is not directly related to the dichotomy presented in the opening post.

None that I'm aware of.

Not my perspective or opinion, but if you believe life is inherently good and enjoyable, then that seems to be a non-egotistic reason to have children.

I would say that being an active member of a Philosophy Forum kinda prohibits you from calling others "snobs" just because they happen to use a particular word, but that's really neither here nor there.

SEP has a good summary here, but a capsule version is that "motives of the will" stem from the passions, not from reason alone, and thus ethical decision-making (and decision-making generally) cannot be smoothly divided between rational and emotional categories. So I agree with the OP that we must "invest our hearts and not just our brains" in ethics, because we simply can't do otherwise. Martha Nussbaum convincingly argues this as well.