Solipsism obviously isn't true, so... — Janus

Sounds like something someone in a simulation would say.

A cool observation, but I cannot concede that definitions are arbitrary because we don't need them to grasp a thing or concept. When discussing ideas, a word can evoke any number of things in a given person's mind. I don't think the issue people face when communicating is a loop of definitions. They usually agree on meaning or don't. Human understanding has more to do with how experience and observation translate into meaning than meaning in and of itself.

Also, there is more to the economy than businesses. Economists are like weather men. Even the best can only do so much. And they still get crapped on by armchair economists.

You've done it again, Aristophanes. Saving the world, one idea at a time.

Lmao. My dad is a civil engineer and this is actually crap he has to deal with haha.

No. like I already was clear about: I don't put a quantifier on the value of human life. One or 1000 lives. I think that in itself is immoral, but that's another topic. And I don't understand how this is not about dealing with crime. You are the one claiming you have a sure way to kill two birds with one stone. The minute you mention how to handle criminals, you are making the conversation about dealing with crime. It's immoral and just poorly thought through IMO (as far as what you've suggested so far). Looking at other responses it looks like I am not alone in thinking this as well. Maybe reconsider your proposal with the suggestions from this forum. I saw a lot of useful critiques of your idea here.

There is this huge failure of societal progress when people think the only way to deal with crime properly is to punish criminals.

I appreciate the good faith. I don't think the the OP's author is acting in good faith though. To me this is really a comical assertion and the only reason I entertained it was because of my involvement in the topic already as well as the hilarity of the logistics of building the system proposed given how much worse things would probably end up. There's too much hypocrisy to address that I don't even dare continue.

I never said to embrace idealism. My point is that the goal and alternatives I explained are reasonably attainable. People act like they are idealistic dreams of perfection, but it isn't ridiculous to imagine that the prison system could change majorly for the better in the next 100 years. What is unrealistic is accepting that stagnation is all that will happen, and that the best we can do is is put a band-aid on a lethal wound. And come on,

but you more than likely had a tolerable upbringing

How is this even relevant? My point of view could be a beneficial and useful one regardless of my background. And how could one possibly come to the conclusion that I had a "tolerable upbringing" based on anything I've said? You insult me by acting like you aren't trying to insult me, when your objective is clear. The reason I'm even spending my breath on this topic in this forum is because it's close to home for me. Back to the point: Doing experiments on a criminal against their will is just as immoral as putting them in a cell. I don't think this is that whacky of a stance and I have yet to see the burden of proof fulfilled by the person making the original claim.

I'm not a hard utilitarian like you are. I think it's wrong to quantify the values of human life. Where there is death, I'd like there to be none, rather than less or some sick exchange of life. Another example of this situation could go like this: I can't just propose we use those in the 1% that are concentrating my nation's wealth as test subjects because I feel they must pay for their negative impact. I personally think the 1% are worse criminals than most murderers, but I can't honestly say one is truly better than the other, or that we should use low-lifes for experimentation. A life is a life. Just because you put a lower value on the life of and inmate doesn't make it right. An inmate is already serving their time or will be put to death. Prison and lethal injection are torture enough I think.

The paradoxical loop you are accepting is that one can know that something is unanswerable. But wouldn't you need some form of access to an answer to know that it is not possible? The lack of an answer does not necessitate that it does not exist. It just means it doesn't exist as far as one currently knows. That's probably the best you could do. But I wouldn't know because I would need to know of the best before I know if something is the best. We can talk likelihood all day though.

I think this belongs in a different forum, just not philosophy.

No, that would mean something is unanswered rather than unanswerable. It is impossible, based on the system people currently use to describe the universe we live in, to know if something is unanswerable.

Your idea makes the justice system "less perfect" by suggesting that rather than move toward eliminating the prison industrial complex, we utilize it to perform clinical trials on individuals against their will. It doesn't matter if they committed a number of egregious crimes, it is immoral to have slaves for any purpose. End of story. (Yes even if it saves lives). Experiments on the jews of the holocaust and the black slaves of the transatlantic trade led to great medical discoveries, but it should have never been done.

Yes I would argue it is. Do you think we have a perfect justice system?

Also a word of advice for using this forum; Remember that people here attack ideas, not the person who has the idea. This forum is made for ideas to be challenged. Defensiveness at people's criticism sends the message that you care more about being right than having good ideas.

once again, I just don't think that a prisoner should be considered a slave who's life is only defined by punishment for the atrocities they commited. No matter how egregious the crime.

I just don't think that a prisoner should be considered a slave who's life is only defined as punishment for the atrocities they commited.

I don't think the issue is anything you mentioned. I think black people like me disagree with the target and specific methods of their efforts. I'm not anti BLM, but I don't feel strongly enough about their politics to support the change they are trying to make. They think that because a people are in crisis, any grand collective solution is better than the current circumstance. I think this is a misstep.

There are a ton of consequences that I don't think have been taken into consideration here.

It's not a belief to be unconvinced. It is to be unconvinced.

Atheism is a lack of belief or not being convinced of a god. I don't understand how you get to a belief in "nothing." show me nothing.

I'm not buyin. Please do not contact me with unsolicited services.

Politics are inherently philosophical. Philosophy arose out of political necessity.

You are exactly right.

Surely this must have an affect on the world. — Brett

Of course it does. I never claimed it didn't. I just said there is no way of knowing how
this will affect the world. There is no question that it does.

I think you've totally missed what I am arguing.

Why do you think it needs to show us something we don't know? This misunderstanding you have is why I brought in the biological connection.

well we can argue what x consists of all year but x is still x

well IDK why x is x. But that is how I perceive reality to be. You are probably the closest so far to understanding where I am coming from lol.

Because Mac is my name, not me. I am me. Me is me. Me=me

Not if she's 18

extra

You know you can leave this website right? I'm sure there's some club you fit in.

I think there is. And you are conforming to the population of people who claim not to conform.

"But what if I believe there are only two genders?" I think this question is on the minds of a lot of Americans and must be taken care of early in this process. How do you address this issue?

They both have negative effects, and they both have positive ones. There is no way of knowing for sure how having a child will influence the world. The solution has to do with anecdotal scenarios. In a country where birth rates are declining, maybe one should consider the benefits of children. In a country with extreme population density, extreme health risks and high infant mortality rates, maybe not. And I agree, we can't be blamed for such choices unless we have or are capable of having access to information regarding the effect of them.

I see your problem now. But once again, I understand this is a philosophy forum, and in that vein it is true that we look too deeply sometimes, especially with such kinds of ontological questions.

You are pretty much correct but why is x=x a problem? Sure x = a number of combined variables. But that also means that x is a particular thing. And no other thing is that particular thing so in making this distinction we must also accept that x is unique; x is itself. Which, again, can be a culmination of other variables, maybe infinite amounts. It is easier and still works formulaically to use the shorthand, x=x. If x were not equal to itself then a harder question would arise: "Does x exist independently of itself?"

My biggest question to you is "why should x=x be something you don't already know?" That's the point. I brought biology into the conversation because of its relevance to corresponding mathematical models. x=x is obvious to us because we evolved for it to be. Otherwise we would not have survived in the same way.

It's just a model, and the best one we have. Give me something better. You can try to poke holes but what I'm saying is solid. If you would seriously consider my points then you might see that your issues have already been addressed. Sloppy language is not the issue, and is equally as bad as poor reading comprehension skills.

Couldn't have said it better. This is why I didn't go to grad school. I'd be a bad prof.