So now the founders beliefs have nothing to do with the movement?
If the KKK grand wizard, a self proclaimed KKK-racist, founded a movement and then decentralised his leadership you would say his self proclaimed KKK racist beliefs wouldn't be relevant to the movement? You wouldnt be suspicious of that movement? — DingoJones

Okay, the founders have something do have to do with the movement. I’ll give you that.

Do you blieve that the KKK and BLM are equivalent in anyway?

This whole debate is very stupid.

God knows — NOS4A2

Is it scary?

They couldn’t replace it if they tried. My contention is that they are preaching dangerous nonsense, none of which has to do with police violence or racism. — NOS4A2

I think you are overstating the dangers even if you believe it is nonesense.

When the founder calls her and her co-founders “trained marxists”, I take them at their word. — NOS4A2

What is a trained Marxist?

In what way does the beliefs of a movements founders not “have to do” with the movement? I would think it would have quite a lot to do with the movement, so please explain that ine to me sir. — DingoJones

Because of the decentralized nature of the movement. The founders dissolved their own leadership.

I got that impression from you!

Nowhere do I see the word “replace”.

When self-avowed marxists... — NOS4A2

What does Karl Marx have to do with an activist movement with no centralized local leader?

The phrase "Black Lives Matter" can refer to a Twitter hashtag, a slogan, a social movement, or a loose confederation of groups advocating for racial justice. As a movement, Black Lives Matter is decentralized, and leaders have emphasized the importance of local organizing over national leadership.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Lives_Matter

disrupting families through their make-believe “villages”, I see trouble. — NOS4A2

Can you provide a source for your implied claim that BLM want villages to replace nuclear families?

I found this on Quora: Why is BLM "committed to disrupting the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure"?

Because:

The origins of black American culture are different from the origins of white American culture, and the nuclear family evolved from European family norms. A model that only permits this one type of family is dishonest about the many cultures that came together to make our country.
Historically, white slave owners actively worked to prevent black slaves from forming this kind of family unit. Later, segregation, redlining, generational poverty, and other effects of systemic racism made, and still make, a greater challenge for many black families vs. white families to form the nuclear family structure. White culture demands that black culture conform to that structure, but puts obstacles in the way, while maintaining the narrative that black people are less valuable and their family and community structures are less legitimate than their white counterparts.
Because of their view from outside of white culture, black Americans have a valuable perspective of the nuclear family, with profound criticisms that everyone should listen to.
Our culture is structured so that the nuclear family is expected to exist in isolation, without a network of support from neighbors and relatives. Even the strongest and fittest people find that way of living stressful, because that’s not how humans are intended to live. Two people working as a team cannot wear every hat—caregiver, breadwinner, housekeeper, groundskeeper, chef, program director, etc. Two people alone live close to the wire—just one unexpected job loss or medical crisis away from disaster. And because they are supposed to be everything the other person needs, they often resent one another and end up with an unhealthy distribution of power, labor, and leisure. But they’re expected to fake it and smile, and keep passing on the lie that the nuclear family is the only and the entire way to be family.

And because that nuclear family is so enshrined, people who exist outside of a nuclear family are devalued and their families are treated as if they aren’t “real.” And people who exist inside of a violent or otherwise broken nuclear family are under pressure to keep the family unit together at all costs—that is, visibly together, even though it’s non-functional.

Yet with all the modern American mythos built around the nuclear family, where that model disintegrates, people keep on parenting and people keep on partnering up. Partnership, parenting, and community are core to the expression of human life. We should celebrate, support, and participate in healthy partnership, healthy parenting, and healthy community, no matter the forms they take.
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-BLM-committed-to-disrupting-the-Western-prescribed-nuclear-family-structure

Good luck with that. :up:

Now you just have to get the approval of congress.

I'm talking all kinds of experiments like infecting the worst criminals with HIV then giving them experimental drugs or cancer via radiation and giving them experimental drugs.

Seems like a better use of prisoners than just killing them or letting them rot.. As well as a much better deterrent.

Not all prisoners should be experimented on, just the worst. — Gitonga

Seems like you advocate Utalitarianism.

There's proactive justice and reactive justice. — tim wood

I was thinking more along the lines with restricting the ability of those who wish to call themselves 'baptist', or better yet, 'Christian'. Of course anyone can call themselves anything, but it is up to the religion on who they accept.

Doubt is a tool. As a way of life, the misuse of a tool. But herein a clue. What is immune to doubt? (And just here, it strikes me, a distinction is to be made between destructive doubt, and questioning, which can be constructive and indeed sharpening.) — tim wood

I am not sure if I am misusing doubt, and therein lies a deep problem for me. I use doubt to defend my doubting. If someone tells me that my doubting hurts me and is unhelpful, there's always the option to doubt even that. How does one get out of such a hole? I guess you can say, "you're playing a silly game. Snap out of it!"

And along this way there's a Cartesian branch to be avoided, and a Kantian branch. The Cartesian branch is ultimately apologetics - perhaps necessary for his own survival when he was writing - that surrenders all its gains. The Kantian branch austere, insisting on what can be known, being thereby knowable. — tim wood

I tend to avoid all philosophical systems, anyhow. You might say it's a bad habit of mine.

For Kant it's just the conception of and implicitly the imperative to refine the conception, the imperative coming from - where do you suppose? - combined desire and reason. — tim wood

Not sure what to make of this. I'm sure Kant was considered a genius at the time, and it's imperative (pun intended), to take him quite seriously.

But the conception is the sole creation of man, refined over the whole experience of man (the prehistoric peoples who buried their dead with tool and gifts for the afterlife). As conception unlimited - but manmade. — tim wood

Based on what you just said I think 'Diety' is an appropriate term for 'god'.

And there's a trick to this. Their demonstrations are for the purpose of making it easier for believers to believe. They don't establish, they facilitate. And it's a great flaw and failure on both sides to mistake this purpose, which most do. Believers imbue the demonstrations with a conclusiveness that they exactly are not conclusive of. And so-called skeptics dismiss them entirely, having failed to understand what they in fact are. Anselm's proof, a poster-child example, is ridiculed as a proof for the existence of God. But it is not that, nor was intended to be. It enables a believer to believe "more better' in that which he already believes - which a reasonably careful reading of the proof makes clear. — tim wood

Now I understand! I guess there is one less ignorant person on the planet now.

Patristics or patrology is the study of the early Christian writers who are designated Church Fathers. The names derive from the combined forms of Latin pater and Greek patḗr (father). The period is generally considered to run from the end of New Testament times or end of the Apostolic Age (c.  AD 100) to either AD 451 (the date of the Council of Chalcedon)[1] or to the Second Council of Nicaea in 787." Wiki.

were a smart bunch. And just as right-wingers in the US misuse, misconstrue, subvert, abuse, and fail to understand or grasp the Constitution of the US. So for almost 2,000 years similarly ignorant people have attempted their own take on religion and faith, in the US mainly the Christian version. Oh dear, I'm ranting! But you get the drift, yes? — tim wood

And thats one of the problems I have with some religions. How do Christian's (just using them as an example) deal with those who do not act according to the ways of Christianity, yet call themselves Christians? (I am thinking of the Westboro Babtist Church). Who is to take responsibility for their detestable actions?

'm not sure what a zombie would say (although speculating about what things would or wouldn't say in a thought experiment is a bit rarefied!). — bert1

Scientists need to create a non human zombie that can talk! Mystery solved! :party:

Someone wishing to speak of their own conciousness is already concious, even by the medical definition — Isaac

This is really interesting. Ask me if I am conscious and I will say, "yes". Ask a zombie if he is conscious and he will either say "no", or not respond.

Like the Roman Centurion, with Kant it's enough to just have faith (in Kant). — tim wood

The skeptical part of my brain says “doubt this”, which is my natural inclination. I’ll ask you if there’s any benefit to suspending doubt?

Kant recognizes - works out - that in terms of God there can be no knowledge (as knowledge). But there's sure as heck the idea of him, and that's enough and more than enough (and it's all there actually is). — tim wood

I can’t even get to that point unfortunately. If I ask many people what god is, they will never give me a straightforward answer. What does Kant understand about conception of God? That’s something I would really want to know.

But work out some of the implications and you begin to see how misguided and misguiding most churches are. At the heart of the thing is the Creed's "We believe...". And exactly and expressly and explicitly not "It's a fact that...". The which is no accident whatsoever. — tim wood

If I’m reading this correctly, I’m getting the impression that many churches act as if the existence of God is certain and can be demonstrated. I remember kids telling me that I’m really dumb because I don’t believe there is a God.

you shouldn't murder anyone. — Enai De A Lukal

I object to that because I believe in the right to murder. :rofl:

nonsense — tim wood

Don’t use that word! It’s @Metaphysician Undercover’s and it has a technical meaning with unique connotations.

The sense that leaves is best explored in Kant's thinking, who finds God in reason. — tim wood

And perhaps one day I’ll muster up the courage to read Kant.

Notice what happens to the wealth of the top 10% between 2007 to 2010? It comes down. — ssu

A dip for the wealthy hits a lot harder than a dip for the poor. That's what your statistics don't show you.

My view is that Camus's solution would not work for many people including those who are religious. Their belief whether God exists or not provides them with a sense of meaning and purpose in life and to tell them that their belief is philosophical suicide seems rather arrogant I think — Ross Campbell

I would attempt to convince them (if they are rational) that you don't need ultimate meaning or purpose to enjoy your life. Also the false hope and meaning that religion gives you is like opium (alluding to Marx).

Thank good Fiduciary Sense that Michael Banks didn't feed the birds, invested his tuppence and was able to save his family home from being foreclosed upon. — Nils Loc

True but unfortunately Michael wasn't able to save his home from a fire. It burnt down due to a stuffed up chimney. The chimney worker that the Bank's family used died from lung cancer and was unable to clean the chimney in Michael's home. The Chimney was left unclean for many years until said fire.

From a specific definition of consciousness that I agree with. I have nothing to say about other possible definitions. You're okay.

mass transfer of wealth from most people to the rich elite for the past 30-40 years or so. — Benkei

VS

a couple of statues and a bit of property damage — Benkei

It's nice to see things in perspective. :clap:

But from another perspective it seems like the left wants to destroy American artifacts from its lovely history. Sacrilege! :scream:

Panpsychism is therefore wrong, by definition — bert1

I would get on board with that.

But by all means look up the stats on wealth distribution through the last recession, to check. — unenlightened

I believe you. :grin:

But why? Why have any consistency to anything? Why not have a gravitational force that changes constantly or a conservation law that works "most" of the time. — Benj96

According to David Hume and a lot of philosophers, the laws of nature are contingent and can change.

If the laws we see in the universe are the only laws that a universe can have this gives fuel to the deterministic philosophy in which things have to/ will occur a certain way rather than completely by chance. — Benj96

Can you prove that the laws of physics are the only way the world can be?

Physics has shown us the universe has many laws or rules by which it operates; gravitational constant, conservation laws, uncertainty principle, thermodynamics etc. — Benj96

Those are the laws of physics, which do not necessarily mean laws of nature.

My feeling behind this OP is that politics is not about values. It’s originally a state of being, of viewing the world around one in terms of personal boundaries, what one has and doesn’t have, who has things and what they are, what’s happening around one and will they be affected by it and how to get what they want. — Brett

Some broader ideas on politics:

“ Agonism argues that politics essentially comes down to conflict between conflicting interests. Political scientist Elmer Schattschneider argued that "at the root of all politics is the universal language of conflict",[27] while for Carl Schmitt the essence of politics is the distinction of 'friend' from foe'.[28] This is in direct contrast to the more co-operative views of politics by Aristotle and Crick. However, a more mixed view between these extremes is provided by the Irish author Michael Laver, who noted that "Politics is about the characteristic blend of conflict and co-operation that can be found so often in human interactions. Pure conflict is war. Pure co-operation is true love. Politics is a mixture of both." Wikipedia. — Brett

Your views seem to be in line. :up:

A good definition uniquely identifies the thing being defined and is reversible. A triangle is a three-sided polygon. A three-sided polygon is a triangle. — fishfry

I couldn't have said it better myself. Is it always achievable though?

Do you want to talk about abstraction in a topic that isn't maths? — Gurgeh

Yes; this:

Everything from tactics to academics tends to be better when it's towards the higher end of this phenomenon. — Gurgeh

I would like to discuss the abstract concepts underlined.

An economic depression doesn't suit the monied class — ssu

Hmmm...

Suicides on wall street aricle doesn't seem to be about the lower class. It might even support your point.

Well if you frame it that way it doesn't seem like a bad idea to support BLM.

Politics is way too confusing. I'm out. :smile:

...the OP was not about mathematics. — Banno

I don't think anyone knows what the OP is about.

But I had previously pointed out that one way to understand maths is that it is the setting to of patterns - making patterns explicit. — Banno

:vomit: We'll leave it at that.

*Cleanup on post 24!*

. The mooted analysis of analysis - requested by the OP - is that it is patterns of patterns. — Banno

Much more simpler to say mathematics involves levels of abstraction. :sparkle:

It seems like I might be unintentionally helping @NOS4A2's claim. :scream:

Why does BLM need our support if they are well funded?

Elections might not but legislation most definitely correlates with who had the money to influence the process. — Benkei

I'm not going to argue about that. The point was to address the claim that @NOS4A2 made in which no one needs to support BLM because they are well funded.