So what's the solution, revolution? In this case I believe the solution is evolution, not revolution, and not the ex-nihilo creation of some perfect political paradise out of a void. — FreeEmotion
I cited this earlier in the thread, worth reiterating in this context that America has form in this, it's right out of their standard playbook
My job [in Syria] is to make it a quagmire for the Russians
— US envoy James Jeffrey — Isaac
↪Isaac You don't even need to cite Syria. The monstrous piece of shit that is Hillary Clinton already suggested it in the context of this war: — StreetlightX
even though he declares ‘decommunization’ to be among his aims in Ukraine.
The problem of suffering is subjective. You think it important. I don't care about it. — counterpunch
unnecessary cruelty — counterpunch
All genetic experimentation is risky; the very nature of sexual reproduction involves gambling with the life of a sentient being.
— David Pearce
In your anti-natalist opinion! — counterpunch
obligation to help. — Isaac
The fear is that a handful of populous states could, through an exercise of federal power, overrule issues states see as their job. — Rank Amateur
The base debate at the creation of the US was the role/power of the the Central government in relation to the power of the individual states. The creation of the electoral college was in relation to this. The less populated states feared that the heavily populated states could dominate a popular election and thereby impose undo power on the less populated states. The electoral college was a way to mitigate that imbalance. — Rank Amateur
Blessedly, no. And even if I did I wouldn't try and ween them off their belief, which would just be a recipe for disaster. — StreetlightX
Not enough indifference. — StreetlightX
The cheated person in this scenario doesn't even have an opportunity to be the aggrieved party by your standard. All I would be offering is the cheated person a chance to decide for themselves if they are aggrieved or not. Implicit in your point is that there is a chance the cheated person might not be aggrieved if they found out. So I intend on letting them make that decision on their own.What is the important point, here? For you it's the cheating. But you're the one who calls it that. Until the aggrieved party speaks, there is no aggrieved party - unless it's you! No cheating has occurred until the "cheatee" calls it. And when that happens, you're out of the picture. — tim wood
You apparently are concerned with the behaviour, but unless you know all the details of the why of it, then you don't actually know what it is. And I have twice excepted crime; and no, slavery is not an issue, nor assault and battery. Try this. Find a wise neutral party, and solicit an opinion there. Clearly you/re only interest here is to promote your own point of view. — tim wood
You have completely missed the point. Your interference is at the level of an involuntary short-arm inspection — tim wood
But it is good to hear you're so ethically minded. No doubt there are many initiatives in your community and beyond where you apply your energy for the good of all. What are some of those? — tim wood
Indeed they do. Perhaps I want to spare my partner the sad and humiliating truth that I have come to find her unexciting, if not repulsive. Perhaps she finds me so, and we have had no physical relations for years. Perhaps apart from this, we get on well and are happy together. Perhaps both of us are cheaters sparing each other's feelings as best we can. — unenlightened
How strongly do you believe in this prospective act if you are not willing to claim it personally, by name? — Bitter Crank
"I feel..," "I am,.." "I feel,..." "I think,.." "I suppose,.." and again, "I feel." Do you see a pattern here? — tim wood
No! 180 degrees wrong. The categorical imperative is an exercise in reason, and not an easy exercise. And you appear to be completely confused about any distinction between public and private concerns. — tim wood
This speaks for itself. — tim wood
I see it in exactly the opposite light. Any pain or damage would be the responsibility of the cheater. It was their actions that crossed the line and it is their actions that would determine whether the relationship ends or mends. At no point could the cheater say, "Well, all of this is the informer's fault! If only you'd stayed oblivious life would be peachy!" I am only allowing the wronged party a chance to make decisions based upon reality.Some good is conceivable; you don't get credit for that. For pain and damage, that's all yours. — tim wood
I'm concerned about you. I think I should come over and inspect that all is as it should be. (You don't get a say in the matter.) That seem right to you? What's the difference between yours and my shoulds. — tim wood
And, I'm guessing the informers are mainly young and never-married men — tim wood
Truth for truth's sake? But no, because you want to be anonymous, and hide your own part. In my book, I call that hypocrisy. — unenlightened
Really? My distinction was that at best you had only shallow, partial knowledge. But you seem to think you know it all. Do you know it all? — tim wood
To the first, all I can say is, grow up! The existence of a personal moral code is not by itself a warrant for anything, much less imposing it anywhere. — tim wood
The problem arises when the underlying reason is not fully laid out or is inaccessible. Should, in that case, becomes a shorthand, a code, that obscures and even hides the reasoning behind the imperative, and thus concealed becomes vicious. So the question is, why, exactly and explicitly, do you think you're obliged to reveal what you think you know. Why even, exactly and explicitly, do you feel a need to go there? — tim wood
And because this is TPF, let's visit Kant. He says that the maxim of your action should be such that it could be universal law, that people are to be treated as ends and not used as means, and that we all should act in such a way that our action tends to a creation of a kingdom of ends. In short, by acting you're saying that what you do to others, others can do to you. If then you speak, why do you speak? And for whom do you speak? . — tim wood
Yes, and that is morally suspect, because it relies on a judgement of the morality of the parties. Who knows, perhaps the cheater is trying to escape an abusive and controlling relationship? One cannot assume the equality of other things. — unenlightened
No, I'm in the inform camp. But I'm only there to the extent that you care about their relationship, and in that case your duty is to both parties, and it is a duty of care rather than a duty to do justice to the wronged party as you see it. You never have a duty to be the moral police of another's relationship. — unenlightened
"Cheating" is only your name for a behaviour, and you do not know exactly what the behaviour is, and, not knowing, you are guaranteed to be wrong. So on that account, butt out. — tim wood
The only thing we do know is that you're itching to get involved, and that for your own reasons. Here's what you do: absolutely nothing. You do not know what people are doing or why they're doing it. Be certain of this: you do harm and possibly a lot of it if you speak, and no good if you do. — tim wood
Please make clear just what "should" means in your post. — tim wood
You can not predict what the consequences of your tale bearing will be. There is a quite good chance that you will make the situation worse by informing so-and-so that the partner is having an affair.
You might be assuming that the relationship is perfect, except for the dirty cheating spouse's slimy affair. Maybe the relationship is dead, and the spouse has found companionship, consolation, and pleasure with someone who was livelier. Is tale-bearing going to make the unresponsive partner suddenly lively and fascinating? Probably not.
You don't know... maybe murder or a serious beating, or two murders will be the result. Who are you to have zero tolerance? — Bitter Crank
Let's muddy the waters. What if the injured party is your sister? Or, what if the cheater is your very best friend....or brother? Would you let your father know that your mother was cheating on him? Why not? — gloaming
on an inter-personal level:
1) Sharing information regarding another's marital infidelity would generally be considered meddlesome and/or cruel (immoral). — Galuchat
" I would want to know the truth" is by itself sufficient, because your wanting something doesn't give it moral authority. On the other hand, you may be justifying this from a 'do on to others, as you would want done onto you' perspective. Even there, you may want to ask yourself, would you really want to know under all circumstances? — Saeed Ahmed
I'm definitely not suggesting infidelity be criminalized. My questioning isn't borne of a prudish view of sexuality. If people want to have open relationships then more power to them.Legally, the prisons would be many times in number and in occupation if it were illegal to have affairs. — gloaming
This is what I was hoping the discussion would lead to. Interestingly, my gut reaction is that the closer in relation or proximity to the offense I am, the greater my responsibility to "meddle".What if the injured party is your sister? Or, what if the cheater is your very best friend....or brother? Would you let your father know that your mother was cheating on him? — gloaming
I think the real question is, what is holding you back from revealing the truth to the people that should know? If someone was getting cheated on, irrespective of who it is (my mom, best friend, co-worker, random stranger), I wouldn't even hesitate to tell them. — chatterbears
I would imagine, that if you have an obligation to inform the cheated, you have at least the same obligation to inform the cheater of your intentions, and give them a chance to own up on their own part, or else bump you off to keep you quiet, or possibly to let you know that they have that sort of open relationship, but prefer to be discrete with each other about the details, so butt out. — unenlightened
So we’ll just say we are confident.
That’s all the dumb public will need. — raza
A glass can be both half full and half empty. Kinda corny, but true. — Posty McPostface
[antinatalism is subtler. Its a condemnation not of existence, but of the part of existence we can consider responsible for existence - however the focus on it is serving the same function - the feeling of guilt is placed elsewhere] — csalisbury
So it is easy to see how a generalised dissatisfaction arises. The more luxurious your life, the more you can become overwhelmed by everything that is just slightly not perfect about it. — apokrisis
Fair points. I've had some exhausting experiences debating creationists and the like and seen many others suffer the same fate, so my attitude is somewhat jaded. — Baden
Religionists of that level don't have anything useful to say about science nor are they worth trying to convince because their group identity is more important to them than being right. This has been studied extensively (see some of the podcasts I've linked to recently which give a good overview of the research ) and the results are as bleak as that. The best thing to do is to just leave them to their ignorance. Yes, speciation obviously happens otherwise there wouldn't be any different... species. And how it happens has been studied and described by scientists. It's not a mystery. — Baden
ProbablyTrue has expressed an interest in interacting with these troglodytes
you have such disdain for. — T Clark
I'm not talking about religious people in general, I'm talking about religious people who maintain that their religious beliefs have a scientific grounding or who try to enforce their religious views re science in the education system, which can only result in mass levels of ignorance, and is a form of abuse as far as I'm concerned. — Baden
So, what is the evidence for speciation? Not viruses, not unusual plant behavior, just regular organisms evolving from one species to another. 1) fossil record. 2) comparative genetic studies between organisms 3) experience with breeding 4) observations in nature 5) What else? — T Clark
In that case, I am afraid that you'll have to tell them that they are right... :rofl: — Agustino
See Cuba, Vietnam, Korea, Afghanistan, et cetera — yatagarasu
This is simultaneously true and untrue. While Putin's speech is likely aimed at bolstering his position for the election this very month, if "The West" responds negatively to his rhetoric, it will act as a confirmation of the need for such weapons(if they exist). Putin is just playing on the hopes and fears of the Russian people so he can retain power.was probably intended more for domestic consumption. — SophistiCat
As if there is some other possible end to be had.Yet you feel qualified to prescribe them extinction. — Roke