Well hold up now. There's God (Lord, rather) mentioned. And you know what that means. If there wasn't normal sexual reproduction the 2 million U.S. population in the 1770's would have been overrun in no time. There would be no America. As we know it.

Kind of goes without saying. "Right to life" ... which is... living. Childbirth. Be like saying since there's no explicit right to breathe oxygen in the Constitution we should have to pay for it lol.

Technically there's no recognition of sexual orientation in the Constitution other than if a citizen wants to have unnatural relations with another and it's not illegal by some other policy (bestiality for example) all rights and protections do apply. That said if the majority oppose it for one or more reasons they have a right to vocalize and rally against it. People for some reason seem to associate "homosexuality" with physical attributes, (soft voice/specific vocal tone, skin, being skinny, or just otherwise ridiculously "nice" or "happy" .. where the term comes from [ironic as the extreme opposite is simply being violently mentally ill]) whereas in reality it's allegedly a physiological determination. You corrupt women into being vile, arrogant tramps it's understandable for a rational man to not be attracted to most. Or a society of degenerates who make you think you're unfit to reproduce because you won't join their debauchery. An explicit form of Nazi-ism in the highest degree, actually. Which is all fine and dandy (to others) .. until there's none left of the only people who know how to operate or fix anything more complicated than a sandwich or know how to do anything more complex than clubbing a man over the head. Perfect for rotting a nation from the inside out as matter of fact. Those smart kids who are geniuses in school who may be a little bit off socially and could use their brainpower to create things that make enemy nations quake in their boots, instead of being their buddy and looking after them, let's shove their head into a toilet and give them a swirly. That'll learn 'em. Idiots don't even see even if it's not foreign propaganda being levied as "good 'ol freedom" they're playing right into enemies hands or their own defeat.

Capitalism is really the only humane way to aggregate an overpopulated world of nearly 8 billion.

Welfare system is a safety net for emergencies. Not a bed for comfort. Every developed civilization has such a mechanism.

Video in OP, yes.

I think his whole "proof' is based on the presupposition that there is a separate existence of justice beyond our minds. — philosopher004

Now I didn't watch the video, feel free or rather please expand on the relevant points of it. But, from what I'm interpreting, this is largely what I believe in just not exclusive to justice or any lone concept.

The human mind is powerful, but compared only to the lesser beings among us. Who knows perhaps there are other beings somewhere that dwarf even the most intelligent. Do you think he means in terms of ability to understand (like what I described) or simply ignorance ie. we're told someone did something bad therefore we believe said person is bad, when it's possible what we're told is a lie and said person is really innocent- we really wouldn't know other than what we choose to believe especially when it comes to past injustice- we weren't there. We really don't know.

It's a common idea across many religions. "God is unknowable, unfathomable, works in ways that are a complete mystery to us" or "God works in mysterious ways," While I may personally believe this as a possibility in the most extreme terms, if I didn't think some concepts were "knowable" by us here and now I really wouldn't be talking about it.

Which of course leads us, in a philosophical sense, back to square one. While I believe in more than this, it would simply not be a philosophical discussion at such a point.

I see what you did there. :D

Anyhow, my understanding of the whole topic would rightfully be called either non-proof or circular logic of the same effect.

So, let's just think about it. There's this guy right. Or gal or entity or several- whatever. Otherwise known as God. We're created as imperfect beings who are best at stealing, killing, lying, conniving... I could go on. Apparently there's a place (depending on your belief) where those who (again according to belief) manage to overcome this vile nature or otherwise "be righteous" get to go. It's pretty nice they say. Conversely, there's this other place (again depending on belief) where those who kinda don't "rise up above and beyond" or otherwise just treat others horribly and miserably, just constantly (again it all depends on belief) have to go. It's not that fun there.

You can be the most vile, hateful, cruel, above all laziest person you can imagine... you still (or rather simply) would want something better. So. If you're a person like that. And if you're told the way to... get more of what you want to satisfy your own desires... is simple and irrefutable. You'd... obviously do so ie. "go through the motions" to get what you want.

If there is this "afterlife place" that is good... you do NOT want those people there. Faith in what you know to be right, yet is difficult, while at the same time you can see with no real contradiction that being vile continues to consistently offer greater pleasures and riches, is what will separate the two. The only thing. Short of total and utter enslavement. So. Eh. You don't even have to be religious or metaphysical about it. It's common sense.

Example I use often, say you're a dying, old, childless multi-millionaire who has always loved.... I don't know pick any hobby the metaphor is the same. Sailing, boats, the ocean, etc. You have a massive and pricey boatyard full of top of the line vessels and everything someone who is passionate about your interest would adore endlessly. Say you also bought a cheaper, somewhat crappy one that is decent enough to someone who again shares your passion... maybe has a few old ships and one that's just okay.

What you do to find someone who shares in your interest and will keep the legacy going? Put out an ad saying "luxurious, exquisite yacht-keeper wanted. high pay." and see how he performs under perfect conditions? Or... put out an ad saying "run down boat yard keeper wanted. legacy of blood, sweat, and tears. must love the seas." and see how someone who must truly love the art (more than the monetary benefits it could bring) performs? The two would be rewarded with the same, that priceless lifetime of work. Only one would have truly earned it and would appreciate it the same.

What on earth? So people are going to start forging papers to get people to go through a process of suicide in an attempt to murder them? I mean, come on. — JerseyFlight

It's called a divergence from your preconceived notions. Earth shattering, I know. To be fair, you're in the majority there.

If I'm say I don't know horribly depressed and want to shoot myself but for some reason cannot gather the will to do so, perhaps I'd ask somebody to do it for me. Ergo, if such a document allowing somebody to do so is now legal, all I have to do is enter somebody's home with a pistol, shoot them, and show the cops a document one could presumably in the idea of freedom, print out from their home computer and sign. Not complicated.

A better example would be a promissory note assigning a fixed amount ($100) worth from one person to another.

If it's molecularly similar there's no difference and only 'counterfeit' due to the fact it was not legally printed from a government-backed institution. The reason I say all this is because of the serial number. It's only valid for one note. Granted if you pass a bill with a duplicate or erroneous (random) serial number to some random clerk or individual it's not like they're going to or even can check to see if it's valid and alert that someone needs to be investigated for financial crimes.

If we're ever in a scenario where we can molecularly replicate something exactly, a paper note would be the last thing to do it with.

The intended purpose aside, there are many ways this can be abused.

Signatures can be forged all the time. Normally this is no problem. Even if incapacitated someone can "find" an old document or will that in actually didn't exist before the person's incapacitation. Difference is, this makes it easy to legally murder someone. No questions asked. Because the state is the killer and there's nothing to hide.

Why not just take murder out of the equation and don't have kids? Lol. Solves everything. Besides. Those responsible will probably suffer from the memory of having to do so. But you know, perhaps not.

Why is jail the best way to solve the social problem of the criminal? — JerseyFlight

Never said it was. That said, an imperfect world begets imperfect solutions. Additionally, most current correctional facilities not only fail in their stated purpose of being 'correctional' but do quite the opposite.

What is the criminal's genesis? — JerseyFlight

Depends. Sometimes out of necessity, perceived or otherwise. Other times out of greed, frustration, lack of self control, mental illness, or just good ol' fashioned indifference. Usually a bit of all. The more pressing question is, what will be their exodus?

I have encountered the claim that black culture — Aleph Numbers

That right there is the problem. Black culture is self sustainability, nature, tribal family units, and more recently jazz. What has become ghetto or urban culture is a poison that has been spoonfed to them using puppets who get rich to destroy their own people- all while thinking they're the puppet masters and catalysts of some sort of "black power" movement spurring change. They're not. They're literally doing the jobs of those who despise them ensuring chains of enslavement are not only unbroken but this time inescapable- not because of others but because it is now their own hand that keeps them on. This time they and they alone have the key, however most will never realize this.

Putting a criminal in jail is not racist. Outlawing, marijuana, a crop that isn't even native to Africa but from the Far East, is not racist. What is racist is just short of explicitly saying black people are incapable of being law abiding citizens or they're otherwise incapable of being responsible for their own actions. What would be racist is not policing predominantly black neighborhoods and letting their children grow up knowing only fear and terror. Or that black people just can't help being high all the time. That's what's racist.

Yes there are problems, yes there are historic injustices that would weigh heavily on anybody's mind and yes they foster emotions and attitudes that encourage criminal activity. No, they do not render a black person from being incapable of achieving what any other citizen can. Is it more difficult? Absolutely. Impossible? Far from it.

I'm not saying there's not inequality. I'm saying the minority of any land will naturally have less opportunity than the majority. The same is true for non-blacks in Africa and the same is true for blacks in America. The problem is the solution. Violent rap music is uplifting, encouraging, and can often offer a strong, powerful father figure when otherwise absent. But it's a trap. Think about it. People used to call black people the n word. Whenever a black man tried to do anything productive he'd be called a coward, a slave, a tool, and would then usually get beaten. Who does it now? Hint: it's not white people. That's what cancer does. It spreads and takes over. It's like a parasitic infection. It will literally attack and kill the host and anyone who tries to remove it and restore health. Good Lord. Heh, this is not exclusive of black people either.

This is the thing that baffles me :How ready people are to unite with others to scorn someone. — philosopher004

Not me. You're safer inside of a mob than outside of it lol.

It's probably more about whether or not a person's actions can or should be reduced to good or bad or rather productive or non-productive toward the well being or advancement of a given society or stated goal.

I think people who do things of questionable or blatant disregard for morality fall into two categories. Those who believe they are doing what they're doing for a greater good (with or without sufficient evidence or solid reasoning - for example teasing or harassing someone sensitive so they can "grow thicker skin", the logic being life can be tough and the more crap you can tolerate the better off you'll be) and those who just have complete disregard for others. Basically, why would something that hurts or is unpleasant to you (injury, assault, belittlement, etc.) be acceptable to do to someone else? Again, I believe anyone who believes this is acceptable would fall into one of the two aforementioned categories.

You understand this is a philosophy site, yes? Not a place for children, physically or mentally, to scribble on yes? Profanity doesn't convey anything beyond an underlying frustration in ones own views and perspective as well as a lack of not only self control but mental ability to logically and maturely respond to criticism of whatever your trying to say while also revealing a deep seated, subconscious lack of confidence in again whatever position was attempted to be shared.

Basically it don't help much to anyone worth convincing of anything lol

Behaviorism = Nurture vs. Nature? (nurture being more relevant- ie. a pitbull will be either as friendly or hostile as you raise it to be)

Functionalism = Pragmatism-esque view of psychology along the lines of form follows function? Without looking into either in any detail, seems to be a myopic philosophy of human psychology.with little effectual purpose. Kind of an anti-philosophy really. More suited for architecture or product design than something as complex as the human psyche if you ask me.

Guy. If you're so right and he's so wrong why do you feel the need to insult and degrade everybody who disagrees with you? It's just toxic dude. You're doing exactly the same thing you accuse others of doing, to a tee. Insulting the "audience" if they have opposing views and not having any positive impact until you change.

You can think you're right as strongly as you wish, meanwhile others will still disagree with you. Instead of pointing out why they may be mistaken, you choose to berate and insult them endlessly. You don't sound happy. At all. Frankly, I'd rather be "wrong" in your eyes than miserable and oppressively toxic to just about everybody else.

And what philosophy, deep down, is nothing more than a mere internal projection to others? — Gus Lamarch

You want to convince as many people of things you believe will help them/others sure. But unless you're doing so politically/religiously that's not of utmost importance. It's about discovering a higher truth for yourself, granted usually with a purpose of helping others, if not just people you deem worthy.

The cynicism and lack of respect here is really impressive. Have a nice day / good night — Gus Lamarch

That's not quite how philosophical judo works. You can't suddenly one day redefine thousands of years of true, selfless empathy on a whim because you may or may not do so solely out of indifference or as you say as "a tool to project your own ego". I don't know you or anyone here personally, I'm berating an idea/attitude not a person. Separate the art from artist.

It doesn't have shanty towns or people living on the streets in tents. — ssu

To be fair, homelessness and frigid, subzero cold don't mix together too well.

I've heard good things about Finland though. Knew someone from there. Cool dude. Smart too.

there is no other experience for the individual than just his own. In that case, putting yourself at the center of all attention is not wrong, because how can it be? If the only way for my “I” to witness the world is through my perspective. In a physiological sense, there is no other way to perceive the world than your own, you are its center, the nexus of all events, learnings, lessons, visions, concepts, etc ... — Gus Lamarch

So by this understanding or fact, the entire OP is something of an autobiography. How could it not be? Hm?

empathy is nothing more than a tool to project your own ego on others — Gus Lamarch

Well... I dunno stop doing that and actually care for others for a minute lol :grin:

Is nobody afraid of the disasters that that can bring? — Seth72

Uh, do you know what CERN is? Lol. Let's just hope it's a contained one instead of a planet destroying one.

Ideologies are like thought traps that can be hard to escape from... And naturally that is bad for philosophy since that is I think all about retaining some mental agility and being able to do away with bad ideas for better ones. — ChatteringMonkey

What is ideology but a belief you stand by? Even anti-ideology is an ideology in and of itself. Lol. Is it not?

Sure, that's a point I like to make often. Just because something works today or has worked in the past doesn't mean it's the one and only truth. Skepticism is vital to knowing and preserving truth. Same with what works or rather is fruitful in the short term vs. what isn't but may be in the long term. This is probably a major source of division. Each position having their own unique benefits and drawbacks.

They constantly seem to be triggered into party-line talking points... that's not thinking and evaluation things on their merits anymore, but regurgitating. — ChatteringMonkey

Supposedly, rather hopefully, people did adequate research into positions they hold beforehand and have weighted the benefits and consequences. Republicans seem to want to deregulate and develop more and also allegedly believe in God and the traditional family unit. That last part aside, sure, you become more successful in the short term- bearing in mind resources are limited there are very clear drawbacks to this. Democrats seem to .. I don't even know what they're into but from what I've heard are more open to immigration, personal freedom, abortion, etc. Too many immigrants who aren't vetted properly could lead to a problem. I hold a belief that abortion may or may not be .. "not right" or whatever so that's a biased view I'll reserve for this reply but, yeah. Every position has it's pros and cons. The two party lines generally encompass (more or less) what the individual believes in and so they're in a sense fighting for what they believe is right. There's always going to be lines people draw between themselves and others. From the personal, individual level say providing for basic needs like food and water.. the individual obviously wants enough to survive (or more) and will oppose a neighbor to get it. These divides can be larger as they were in the past encompassing things like religion or race. That in mind, a political divide is the lesser of (many) evils and so should be tolerated if not favored.

I did see it. It doesn't change your inability to prove (or apparently even make) your point. — Pro Hominem

My point is I think you're wrong and you don't. That's it- we're done.

This entire passage is so fraught with fallacies, I don't even know where to begin. — Pro Hominem

Name one thing that's wrong. Dare ya. Someone commits an atrocity toward one group because they believe they deserve it and is justice, when as a matter of fact, they did nothing and this perceived idea of justice is really injustice. Do you agree or disagree? Define justice. Right being made wrong or people believing right was made wrong?

Er, ok.... Um, let's try: please provide your definition of the word "God" since you claim to have a different one than the rest of us do. — Pro Hominem

You know what God is, ok. I'm merely saying that books are books and some may not even be worth the paper they're printed on.

Edit: wrong being made right.. lol

Well some philosophy seems to ignore reality — ChatteringMonkey

Like what? Solipsism? Lol. I do doubt it completely but technically .. technically .. we don't absolutely know with omniscient certainty that say we're not all figments of say @NOS4A2 's imagination or something. Again I don't think there's any productive discussion to be had along the lines of solipsism but I think the core idea can be redeemed by saying "all we know is that we exist" is a starting point to expand instead of stop. Again, floors not ceilings.

Reality is constant. However our perception of reality is 9 times out of 10 just our interpretation of observable circumstance ie. geocentricism, men being able to fly through the sky being impossible, same with space travel, etc. Who knows one day the Earth could lose it's gravity and we'll all have to live a weird upside down life in buildings using ceilings as floors, tethering ourselves when we want to go outside to get some Sun. It's not reality that changes, it's our understanding of it- rather the circumstances which defined our observable conclusion of it. Which has from the beginning of time and probably will until the end of it.

This sound like it could be interesting, but I don't quite understand what you mean. I"m not trying to be dismissive here, just curious as to what you mean. — ChatteringMonkey

Neither politics nor ideology has to stifle philosophical thought intrinsically I'd say. Sure, any one current political system or prevailing ideology may present ideas that seem to hinder or restrict productive philosophical thought (as in how to best go about creating positive change in the world in which we live as opposed to simply learning about it). Essentially you use these things that largely and in part control most peoples lives and actions (politics/the law defining what you must do and ideology defining what people believe they should/want to do), see the benefits of them, the drawbacks, and mayhaps figure out how the benefits can be improved and the drawbacks can be mitigated. Not a great explanation but post some examples of how politics/ideology can harm philosophical thought. Aside from dogmas. I get that.

Without politics we have war and bloodshed. Or more of it at least. Without ideology we have emotion run amok coupled with odd, disjointed beliefs birthed by mere happenstance. Politics, to some, can be reduced to mere civilized mob rule, which has always been in existence since the beginning of language and probably earlier. Ideology can also be reduced to mere opinion, usually one that sounds good or promising as in able to facilitate greater works than an opposing one. Which again shares most of the traits described. These are part of reality and so unless one wants to make the argument that philosophy ignores reality, they're simply part of the philosophical equation.

Again, you use restrictions or "what is" as guides or supports to bolster productive discussion as opposed to limits that restrict it. Floors not ceilings.

No, it's not, and if we argue about it, I'll win. — Pro Hominem

See edit. You big winner, you.

You clearly don't understand what justice is. Paying attention to it whether or not anyone is watching is kind of the point. — Pro Hominem

The question was can it be defined sans theological background. Nothing more.

Perception of justice =/= justice. You're told Group A invaded Group B's lands and slaughtered women and children. It was Group C who told you this, and you believe them, so you do the same or otherwise punish Group A. Now say in reality it was Group C who actually did what they said Group A did and you remain unaware. In your mind, and that of everyone else who believes what you believe, this is justice. Is it really?

Um, yes, that is actually the prevailing customary use of the word. I also believe it is the usage intended by the OP. If you would like to use it some other way, the burden lies with you to explain yourself. — Pro Hominem

I don't need to explain myself, it lies in the definitions. God is God. Religious doctrines are man's attempts/efforts/dogmas to explain God and what is asked or required of us. If most of the world calls a spade a rake, is it? Well... perhaps. But let's use a real historic example. If most of the world says the Sun revolves around the Earth, does it? Not really.

I would argue that one MUST exclude god to have any grounds for justice. — Pro Hominem

Well that's just silly.

However, OP, yes. It is possible to define justice as an atheist. Now, is there any reason to abide by it when nobody is looking and/or you're sure you could get away with it? Not so much.

Edit: I forgot to realize people conflate God with man-made religion and its doctrines regularly. In fact, most do I believe. Huge, huge difference. Replace the word 'god' with 'man-made religion and its doctrines' and we're on the same page.

Not really a theory, mate. According to Marx as well it would seem...

some theory of human nature — Maw

Erm.. I mean I'm the first one to encourage skepticism of mainstream history but.. pretty sure at least most of it happened lol. Kinda graduates past the "theory" stage really. Besides, wasn't your boy Marx talking about something along the lines of "the people want what they want (feels natural, doesn't feel totalitarian/government enforced) and will fight (damage people and property) for it" or some bit?

Thinkers and Humanists are frighteningly outnumbered. — JerseyFlight

Story of humanity. Not as bad today as it was before. You follow the law and don't attack people or property you won't get arrested/get a record and have your life ruined. Besides, do we really want all these geniuses running around trying to one-up each other? At least when average folk do it usually only one or a few people get hurt or worse. They do it, we'll probably end up with some doomsday devices that end up making nukes look like cherry bombs. Gotta look at the bright side of things.

I'd like to state for the record -- deep down -- I'm not intrinsically for or against any one socioeconomic system. Eh. Suppose it's a bit of cowardice on my part. I find things "somewhat acceptable"- I guess- rather acknowledge things could be fiendishly worse- somehow- and perhaps like many people, fear change of indeterminate result.

Everything sounds good in your head and even on paper. Every man, woman, and child having a place to live, food to eat, water to drink, clean air- literally given everything you need to survive but nothing more. If you want to upgrade, move to a nicer location, get nice things, you work. And are rewarded accordingly. I think what people are either forgetting or not properly acknowledging is the fact that when Marx was born the world population was around one billion and today it has increased seven-fold surpassing seven billion, soon to be eight billion with no signs of slowing down whatsoever but instead increasing. As times change, what could have been paradise then could turn into Hell on Earth now. It would seem to be the only humane way to aggregate humanity toward a better and brighter tomorrow.

Could be wrong. Eager to be disproved if so. After all we've made unimaginable leaps in science, medicine, and agriculture... who really knows?

David Mo has already addressed these kind of fatalistic, all or nothing arguments, which seem to be the foundation of all cult-minded-thinking.

The level at which this reply is the result of what is administered, thus rendering its purveyor incapable of standing outside his own culturation, is disappointing to say the least. I do not know how one replies to this, not because it is so incredibly profound, but because it is so incredibly naive. So many countries are doing socially better than the United States (and surely that must be the whole point in establishing a government, to secure social quality). The question, "yeah, but what is there besides plantations and masters?" How does one communicate with this kind of artificial consciousness? — JerseyFlight

Hmm... so, in the pursuit of identifying and disproving "fatalistic, all or nothing arguments" as well as "cult-minded-thinking" ... why does one person having more stuff than another person -- perhaps, rather hopefully, due to his or her efforts ie. the fruits of his or her labor -- have to automatically be "plantations and masters"?

The system is not perfect. No worldly system is or will ever be, But someone who say happens to be a genius and excels at say mathematics or physics who from his efforts and endeavors could literally place their nation ahead of the pack, unrivaled in war and innovation, should earn/receive the same as someone who can barely change the oil in their car or its tires? I think this is the main sticking point that myself and many others would refer to whenever discussing arguments against capitalism. Essentially it devalues human ingenuity and I suppose even effort and integrity. Why do all that when I can just flip burgers and live the same life as someone who struggled and strived to achieve from day 1? I'm curious. Help me out here guy. Hey, if I'm mistaken I'm mistaken and should be able to be disproved, logically, rather quickly. To change things you have to influence people, otherwise nothing will ever happen and we'll all just age quietly in a pleasant yet irrelevant echo chamber.

I do believe there's wisdom in words from the masters- even those I may not particularly agree with.

"The property in the soil is the original source of all wealth, and has become the great problem upon the solution of which depends the future of the working class." — JerseyFlight

This is hard to refute. Earth elements can make anything from cities themselves to weapons and tools to defend them. Science and innovation has changed this some however. Beyond that you do need space or land to produce crops or raise livestock for food or other purposes. Let's not forget about the oceans or the beasts of the earth and sky now.

But what's some average Joe going to do with thousands of pounds of rock and ore? Either make stuff out of it or sell it. Which is what happens anyway. Granted these companies are ran by those lucky enough to have been born into a wealthy family and have large if not entire control over what's done with it, they usually have government contracts that mandate all or some of it's eventual use in exchange for certain permissions. Allegedly the argument is it adds to the GDP, helps the economy, and creates jobs and opportunity for all. Trickle down economics I suppose. What alternative is there and is it really better or even much different?

"...the advocates of private property... have tried hard to disguise the primitive fact of conquest under the cloak of "Natural Right". If conquest constituted a natural right on the part of the few, the many have only to gather sufficient strength in order to acquire the natural right of reconquering what has been taken from them." — JerseyFlight

Unfortunately, ethics aside. Everyone is the majority lol. This idea would just create infighting for little to no reason other than greed or being jealous of your neighbor or fellow countryman simply because he has more. Basically most would say it wasn't taken from them but (obviously) for them. If anybody can join ie. become a citizen of a certain country regardless of race, religion, etc.- that really throws "conquest" out the window and into irrelevancy.

"In the progress of history the conquerors found it convenient to give to their original titles, derived from brute force, a sort of social standing through the instrumentality of laws imposed by themselves." — JerseyFlight

There are very few if any who weren't doing so under the order of their kingdom, empire, church, or some sort of ruling class. They were essentially foot soldiers.

"At last comes the philosopher and demonstrates that those laws imply and express the universal consent of mankind. If private property in land be indeed founded upon such an universal consent, it will evidently become extinct from the moment the majority of a society dissent from warranting it." — JerseyFlight

You go door to door in any country that has buildings and infrastructure and survey "who wants to give up their house and belongings you toiled for" ... see how that turns out. Granted, the majority don't live in as nice houses as the wealthier minority, so it is plausible. But once examined with logic the fact remains, there are only a few "mansions" relative to normal houses. Who gets an upgrade? Not many. Who has to downgrade? Nobody knows. The average person, unless literally homeless, would probably not want to gamble with an adequate enough situation.

"However, leaving aside the so-called "rights" of property, I assert that the economical development of society, the increase and concentration of people, the very circumstances that compel the capitalist farmer to apply to agriculture collective and organised labour, and to have recourse to machinery and similar contrivances, will more and more render the nationalisation of land a "Social Necessity", against which no amount of talk about the rights of property can be of any avail. The imperative wants of society will and must be satisfied, changes dictated by social necessity will work their own way, and sooner or later adapt legislation to their interests." — JerseyFlight

Only time will tell. Like someone I used to watch would say: "there's a war out for your mind."

Well now that I'm sure you know neither I suppose we can focus more on the questions in your OP.

Which largely are akin to asking "why does one need a father when one can have a kid?"... of course, we'd just delve into a theological debate beyond this point so those are just my remarks on the subject presented.

So esteemed physicists arguing for the idea of universes where everything that can or could have happened did didn't flag your radar. But me saying dreams are some sort of version of this is. For some reason. Sure.

You watching a movie is still you... just watching a movie. — Key

Right, I meant it's a front-seat interactive, controlled experience as opposed to a backseat immersive one. Probably goes without saying.

Dreams may give you a heightened sense of control... so do video games. — Key

Nothing about it being heightened simply it's like being awake. What I've noticed is sometimes there's a disconnect, for example when I have dreams of past relatives or things that don't exist you (or at least I) don't always process it as "hey this isn't right". That said occasionally, when something ridiculous or just impossible occurs I do think... wait a minute... this is a dream. lol. "Let me ignore this, it's nonsense" - that's when I can usually have fun and "explore" so to speak. Doesn't happen too often.

In general I'd like to request clarification on what it exactly means to "rather be doing" something that you really can't experience in any way shape or form let alone remember. Lol. Just say you'd rather be sitting there doing nothing or whatever happens to tickle your fancy. More specifically...

1) There are a lot of de facto things in the context of living in any given human social system. I'd rather be sleeping than clothes shopping or grocery shopping. I'd rather be sleeping than working on various spreadsheets or reading technical material that isn't interesting but necessary. I'd rather be sleeping than doing a lot of various tasks throughout the day big and small. — schopenhauer1

What's wrong with clothes shopping? Is the store crowded or shabby, prices too high, don't have what you want to wear? Just not a vain person, casual white T-shirt and blue jeans and you're good to go? That's great. More power to you, rather more time and energy to spend on productive things. The same with grocery shopping. Not of a discerning palette? Just need something you're able to stomach to fill you up some and you're set? Again, all that better. You have to prefer either clothes or food in a non-essential kind of way. What's wrong with doing so in a perfect environment, with enough funds, and enough time to do so- hypothetically. A gorgeous, vast building inspired by the collective progress of human architecture since the dawn of time (or if that's not your thing a cozy little shop) to peruse through an incredible selection that consists of goods from not only all corners of the Earth but even entire periods of time? Personally I think you've just become complacent and accustomed to what others who came before you could never fathom in their wildest dreams. You can be feasting on the finest American beef, prime Italian cuisine, exquisite Asian delicacies, exotic Middle Eastern favorites, and more in a matter of mere minutes without even leaving your couch for goodness sake. Imagine a poor working class person in the Middle Ages entering a Wal-Mart for the first time. They'd think they died and went to Heaven. I don't know man, complacency is it's own punishment.

Computers are fun. Would you rather keep track with pen and paper meticulously jotting everything down letter by letter and hand-delivering it? How unfortunate you have to read material that people who dedicated their lives to the betterment of the human condition would have given their lives for not half a century ago. I do hope you'll survive.

I don't know. I like your profile, it makes me smile. And what posts of yours I have seen before this one. Again, I separate the art from the artist. I'm on the warpath against an idea, nothing else. Rather attitudes or states of mind that are detrimental to how ideas were formed in the first place. For your and everyone else's benefit I assure you.

To be fair after sampling a few of his posts I get the impression that English is not his first language. Though snarkiness may be. Which is a tad worrisome as I occasionally am, in good spirits mind you yet intent is always open to interpretation. Yipe!

My only concern is what takes place in terms of life and its concretion, I could care less about the abstract world of forms -- that is, until idealism starts distorting reality. — JerseyFlight

Reality in this context is little more than an environment that follows scientific laws. It's about how we- instead of being restricted by these confines- use them to our advantage to create a better society and civilization as a whole. We can either embrace something like idealism (or positive change) or succumb to something like cynicism (or stagnation). Which all points considered makes the latter seem like little more than just being lazy. People confuse circumstance for reality quite often. Here's an example of both.

Ancient Rome. The pinnacle of Western society at one point. The envy of the world. Running water ensuring healthy citizens along with representative government ensuring happy ones as well. Exquisite bathhouses that are still replicated to this very day! Not the least greatest feature of these being indoor toilets. Did you know Romans would often discuss life, politics, and even conduct business deals... while on the toilet. So you got two guys (or hey why not several) all together in a room with their pants down just casually defecating talking about life, trading some grain, shoot maybe even discussing philosophy as we are now! That was the life then and it was embraced by society. Now suppose one day, while again publicly defecating someone came up with the notion of... bathroom stalls or even in-home toilets and decided to mention it to... again the man just casually doing the same right beside him. What if what I quoted was his reply? What if nobody improved the first cellular phone or television set. Or airplane or even just brushed any and all notions of these inventions we take for granted aside because "it's idealism run amok" or "a distortion of reality"? They weren't feasible at the time. Some were even impossible. And yet. Think about it...

Then it is necessary to intercede on behalf of intelligence. — JerseyFlight

Well that didn't take long now did it lol. Looks like we're all a bit elitist deep down.

Nearly all of them are Elitist. — JerseyFlight

Reminds me of an earlier thread here about the Trial of Socrates. He was sentenced to death or exile I think. He chose one or the other but made some remark (or maybe someone here did) about "if he says he knows nothing how can he know wherever he would go people would drive him out?" My reply was it's simple, people don't like having their core beliefs challenged or otherwise proven wrong. They will get nasty and turn on you in a second, often violently. And it's true. Even here sometimes lol

I see this as a serious problem because the intellectuals have begun to function as a new ruling class. — JerseyFlight

First, I doubt it. Second, Oh the horror. Let's just get my nephew's son who plays in a garage band to be responsible for the lives of hundreds of millions if not billions of people. Really? lol

To the eager child everything is true, until it's not. To the aged skeptic everything is false, until it's not. Both can believe and share mistruths without ever once telling a lie. Ironic how much the two have in common.

Solving the world's problems at other people's expense. Everyones favourite philosophy; everyone's favourite politics. Shitbags of the world unite, you have nothing. — unenlightened

Oh come now, lighten up. Have you seen this guys posts? Dude is a living personification of Johnathon Swift's "A Modest Proposal". It's funny. At least, until you see how many take it seriously. Perhaps that's his point? Kind of like Halloween, an early reminder the monsters we fear are real and the heroes we seek are far and few. For a time.

The ethics being, which is more immoral, to have a coffee at Starbucks while some child is dying of disease and starvation or to actually be the one responsible for bringing the child into the world. I think if you bring a poor child into existence you can't blame society (not the government) for not helping you as you are the one with the greater moral sin — Gitonga

What does wealth have to do with anything? The world is a shifty place no matter your income. Excluding those poor from a result of explicit theft, as in poor solely of their own volition, it still doesn't compare to those morally poor. Going with the latter definition of poverty I have to say I find little to disagree with.

Of course, not every child, poor or not, was brought into this world by consensual act. You know what I mean. What are we going to do about them? Perhaps we should set up a task force. We'll call it Gitonga Team.