Your post was a request asking people to donate to a charity. There wasn't anything philosophical about it yet you posted here in the ethics forum. It has nothing to do with ethics, as a philosophical study.

Maybe it is something new we have never had. Maybe it's an increase in something and a decrease in something else. There has to be a way to balance this equation to solve for this douchebaggery. — Lif3r

A douchebag's number one weapon is their ability to charm. We need to explain to people who are easily charmed that douchebags don't give a fuck about them.

a) Panpsychism is wild guesswork.

b) Panpsychism is wild speculation.

c) Panpsychism is a wild conjecture.

d) Panpsychism is wildly misguided.

e) Not wild.

f) None of the above.

g) Fuck this assignment.

Which answer is most correct?

Is 'conjecture' any better?

speculation — Banno

I'm sure you can think of a better word.

There's no possible experiment you can do to show that a rock is conscious. Panpsychism is complete speculation.

However, as many have pointed out, exactly the same can be said for the book at the end of which this passage appears. — Wayfarer

It's called 'self-destruction'.

Metaphysics never goes away; it simply adopts different disguises in different cultures. — Wayfarer

Another reason to always be on guard.

I don't exist either. I am merely a fragment of your imagination.

I'm pretty sure David Hume invalidated metaphysics 300 years ago.

It's actually related to Marxism. :smirk:

In The Communist Manifesto of 1848, Karl Marx describes how the bourgeois or monogamous two-parent family has as its foundation capital and private gain.[24] Marx also pointed out that this family existed only in its full form among the bourgeoisie or upper classes, and was nearly absent among the exploited proletariat or working class.[24] He felt that the vanishment of capital would also result in the vanishment of the monogamous marriage, and the exploitation of the working class.[24] He explains how family ties among the proletarians are divided by the capitalist system, and their children are used simply as instruments of labour.[24] This is partly due to child labour laws being less strict at the time in Western society.[24] In Marx's view, the bourgeois husband sees his wife as an instrument of labour, and therefore to be exploited, as instruments of production (or labour) exist under capitalism for this purpose.[25]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familialism#Criticism_of_Western_familism

It sounds more like societal norms than an actual requirement. I have nothing against BLM talking about nuclear families, but to say that nuclear families are a requirement in black communities seems like a stretch. Is the government imposing regulations that have an impact on the family structure?

If I don’t think that then how do we decide if it is or isn’t? — Brett

We need a criteria for judging media.

That’s a really, really good question.

Much better than a lot that’s out there, but not perfect.

No, not everything The New York Times writes is bad (I hate using that word).

If i said The New York Times was not just a poor newspaper — Brett

What is your reason why you say The New York Times is a poor newspaper.

‘Bad’ is a subjective judgement.

I shouldn’t have used that word.

What I mean there is that just because I reject a news source or story doesn’t mean my critical reasoning is poor. — Brett

Okay.

I’m not sure what you mean there. But my feeling is that we are not to be held responsible for standards of the media. Those standards have been set by business interests. — Brett

That doesn't mean we can't do anything about it. If a media source has a reputation of deceiving its viewers, it is up to the viewers to stop watching it. Putting the blame on the media source is convenient, but only solves one half of the problem. The other problem is the demand for bad media, and is totally on us.

You can say that particular news sources should be rejected by people, or that they should be better at analysing what they’re reading, but people chose a source they feel comfortable with. You might have leanings to the right and consequently reject news sources from what you regard as the left and feel they’re unreliable. Does that mean the stories from the left are sub standard, or that you’ve failed to read them carefully enough? — Brett

Bad media comes from both isles of the political spectrum. Your political point of view shouldn't be an obstacle for you to avoid low quality journalism.

nuclear family structure requirement — Kenosha Kid

There is no nuclear family structure requirement. This whole thing is bullshit.

What exactly is the problem? I choose media based reputation.

Determined by my comprehension of a news story? — Brett

Determined by your ability to argue about the news with others.

And then what? It still comes down to what you chose to read and then make a decision that yes, that sounds true, or yes, I trust that journalist. — Brett

It shouldn't be different than shopping for clothes.

And why should I doubt my critical reasoning skills as they are? — Brett

There's always room for improvement.

It's very typical for humans to blame our problems on others. I have a suggestion, instead of placing all the blame on the media market, we could play a part, holding the media accountable improving our critical reasoning skills. Perhaps the media is this way because many of us are naive and are willing to consume whatever authority figures tell us.

You're agreeing with me? Cool! Even if it's in a different thread! — fishfry

I agree with you on math, disagree on politics.

There's a growing cultural awareness about the way manipulative media outlets which portray themselves as being impartial and fact-based are carefully arranging their presentations in order to further political aims. The news also seeks to entertain and interest, motivated by increasing viewership, ad revenue and ratings. Some of these motivations go against common ideals. — Judaka

True, but not limited to the so-called mainstream media. There's biased media all the way from Democracy Now! to CNN. Also from Infowars to Fox news. All media is biased.

Then why say you KNOW there are no deities? — Frank Apisa

Because I'm insane. I don't know.

YOU MADE AN ASSERTION. The assertion was that you KNOW there are no deities. — Frank Apisa

I lied.

Do as you will.

No, I wouldn't say they much in common except irrelevant, generic categorisations. — DingoJones

Okay.

Let’s get back to the beginning.

Do you "believe" there is no God...or no gods? — Frank Apisa

I don’t know what to believe.

You made an assertion in a philosophical forum thread. YOU do have an obligation to prove it. — Frank Apisa

That’s not true because I didn’t agree to any of this. You asked me a question and I answered it.

YOU do not get to tell me what I should or should not do in my responses, Wheatley. — Frank Apisa

It was only advice.

I have not said you do not know. You have said that you do.

Prove that you do. — Frank Apisa

There’s no obligation to prove anything.

I am not confusing them, Tim. I am asking Wheatley about the difference.

What do you think of his response that he KNOWS there are no deities? — Frank Apisa

Don’t get Wood involved, I’m only trying something out.

You KNOW there are no deities? — Frank Apisa

Prove that I don’t know.

I know.

By the looks of it, black people thriving is not everyone's idea of Utopia. — Kenosha Kid

Yep. A lot of people don’t give a shit about what happens to black people. They’re constantly dehumanized and called names.

Do you "believe" there is no God...or no gods? — Frank Apisa

No such things as deities.

In the years since, we’ve committed to struggling together and to imagining and creating a world free of anti-Blackness, where every Black person has the social, economic, and political power to thrive. BLM website

Sounds like a utopian society to me.

Perhaps. But I believe family stability is important to the health, wealth, and well-being of individuals. — NOS4A2

It’s fine to believe that.

No, it just hints at the ideological undertones of the organization. — NOS4A2

Good.