I’ve seen what happens in the USA. It happened in Scotland in 1996, and it was that that brought in gun control here. We haven’t had a school shooting since. — Michael

Okay. A school shooting (a few dozen dead kids) is bad. A war, my friend (a few million dead kids) is worse. There are no excuses or way to sideline or "talk around" that fact. Without a right or means to defend oneself from an oppressive government, the darkest desires which often control people imbued with the mindset to seek power over others, such becomes inevitable. And don't give me that "a rifle cannot defeat a military jet or drone" nonsense. Soldiers and police are people too who want to go home to their families who literally wake up each day knowing they prevent indiscriminate killing of their own countrymen. They're not going to do that and the average low-level enforcement (cops) will be less likely to.risk their lives over a clearly immoral order that would likely end in one or more of their own deaths.

Not to mention, societal collapse. Historically, basically all nations are "roving gangs" temporarily turned civil due to access to resources that belonged to other people. There are no good people left, for the most part. We're literally the worst of humanity, artificially propped up by violence and theft. That's all there is to it. Ticking time bombs waiting to go off. Of no purpose or value but what we delude ourselves into thinking. Meaning, an individual who chooses to live a private life without engaging in (basically forced and compulsory) social membership with strangers because "I don't want to die" (AKA fear) should have a right to reasonably defend himself from a group of marauders, something only possible with a semiautomatic (or higher) firearm. All current institutions and groups were ultimately based and established on the principle of fear. Fear is not solid ground.

I don't know you, but I feel I know enough from your posts to establish you're not a minority or someone who has reason to have means to defend themself over someone who is not. I'm right about that, aren't I? Yes, I often am.

it’s because I think that private gun ownership is too dangerous. — Michael

Do you feel you are responsible enough to have a gun? Meaning, you won't just flip out one day into an imaginary "last stand" against "society" and try to kill as many people as possible? Do you, if you have kids, believe you've raised them properly enough not to do the same?

Why don't you trust other people to make the right decisions? It's because you acknowledge you are, at least in one or more ways, superior to the average person. Be it by intellect, by morals, or simply self control. Am I wrong? If so, why? Do you just randomly think people in general are untrustworthy enough to wield any sort of power? Why are men allowed to raise kids then if they're unable to make the right decisions, in your eyes? Why not just give your kid to a monkey and hope for the best? What of governance then? In many ways, that's similar to a man owning a gun.

What about crossbows? Is it the "danger" aspect where one shouldn't be allowed unequal force over another person due to safety concerns? If so, shouldn't we regulate bodybuilders or "taller/stronger than usual" people since they can physically cause large amounts of harm to the "average person" more so than in reverse? You gotta pick a side here mate. One side entails many other things you may not immediately observe or be aware of. Things that might open your eyes to possible hypocrisy. Or perhaps not. But it is possible.

Just curious as to what your mindset is. Thanks.

Oh, except for to say, I dearly hope if they do catch the perpertrator, that he is captured alive. There are many questions that will need answering. — Wayfarer

No there's not. The average man cannot comprehend all that surrounds him. He gets frustrated at traffic even though it's sign of his own, not only economic wellness, but progress as a species. People in general are not very smart. They do terrible things without realizing they are terrible. Until you realize this, you will live a life unpleasant, and so, naturally only contribute to said unpleasantness.

I don't know if he was racist, but his transphobia, imo, was just as bad. — RogueAI

So you just say things for no reason then. Why bring up the plight of people mistreated and killed for a physical quality they were born with no control over, then?

You can't compare the plight of people treated differently by the color of their skin in which they had no choice or control over to those who (were forced to) decide(d) they are different by the choices and mechanisms of their own mind brought about by others and factors that were only determined after their birth and developmental process. That's literally the definition of genocide. You are complicit to genocide. Unknowingly perhaps. But complicit all the same. The fact they-- I'll pause it here I have to respond to the above post. Come back to me with later.

I can't reconcile how this purportedly fine upstanding citizen could go into bat for the candidate that denied, and tried to subvert, the 2020 election, including whipping up a mob who ransacked the US Capitol Building, and being caught on tape discussing how to fake an election win with fake electors. I don't understand the depth of delusion that allows these apparently earnest and educated activists to pretend that the current President is anything other than an authoritarian egotist who poses a mortal threat to the American body politic. — Wayfarer

You can't reconcile how people can be people? The very worst of what life is when given the chance? Surely you're not that naive. I've said this many a time to many a people, mostly those in power, but now to you: "The only different between the lowliest kindest person and the most cruel dictator are two simple things we all possess or otherwise have access to: Opprotnity. And time." Deep down, you know, not me, forget me, I'm not part of this equation, but Truth and Reality remain Truth and Reality.

Beautiful post, Tim. If I may call you that. If not, blame @Banno for encouraging the inevitable.

Though a bit over my head, unfortunately. It's easily enjoyable by even the most novice of intellects, per your unique and concise spirit of wording. It's like you "get us" normal folk. :wink:

Very cool. Do post more. If you would?

I saw that. That's crazy. I'm a bit of a fanatic so I have no doubt he'll actually be on a beach in Belize after a facelift and tan sipping cocktails delivered by scantily clad maidens until he no longer remembers what memories are. Just my take.

Also, this has nothing to do with Trump. Remember, all the enemy can do is distract you to throw you off mentally. And your post seems to be a fairly sufficient example of said phenomenon.

I mean, there are no trans animals in nature. People are awful, I agree. They bully people who are smaller than them to believe anything they want. That's a tragedy, sure. But aside from the 0.00001 people who are born biologically of the same sex (both organs or both chromosomes), I don't get it. It's just larger or ruder people bullying and mentally damaging people into thinking they're "beneath" them or "freaks". The people who do that, who harm their fellow man to such a degree of permanence, should not be alive, yes, I agree with that. But you don't let them get away with their crimes by accepting fallen or warped mental states as "valid". That's what they want. That's how they win. You're being their slave right now. Stop or be stopped.

Also, that has nothing to do with black people. Like I specifically requested information on.

Charlie Kirk, to me, was the equivalent of the guy walking around with the "I hate *******" sandwich board. — RogueAI

What did he say about black people or "predominately black neighborhoods?" Again, I never heard of the guy until just yesterday, so. Just curious as to what information or knowledge you have that makes that analogy valid in your mind.

what defies comparison — Paine

This.. is an interesting concept, at least as my mind is able to process it. Could you go into further detail? What, truly, "defies comparison" as far as something that is not lexicographically or taxonomically similar?

Since TPF is for philosophical discussion, people usually participate with some knowledge already gained elsewhere — and that seems right to me. — Jamal

Oh, absolutely. 100%. I suppose my little odd gripe was that, some of us, prefer to, shall I say "chart our own paths", just like the greats you're familiar with assuredly did, themselves. Sure, it's a bit silly to think just anyone can do that. However, don't you feel that some philosophers did have their own personal biases and faults? I recall (not specifically) some famous philosophers made subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) references or quips or even flat out attacks on the ideas and even personal character or mannerisms of other famous philosophers. I forget who, but one brilliant mind and philosopher was apparently a Nazi-sympathizer or something of the sort? He was still a brilliant mind. And lots of people assuredly learned from him. My point is, some people like to discover things "from the ground up" without reading possibly inspirited works that may likely have personal biases that really have little to nothing to do with the concepts they speak of, as elegantly put as they are.

If that makes sense? Meaning, we shouldn't have to read an entire book by a person to garnish the "highlights", "essence", or "point" of what logical argument or case the person desired to put forth. Sure, it's great. Romantic. Even an honor, to read what the mind of one no longer present to ask questions has to say. But, that aside. Some of us believe to be human is to be biased, perhaps you believe that even yourself? Just a passing concern I had is all. You are correct, the online resources can provide all that needs to be provided. Some of us however, just prefer a more human touch and approach to things we find sensitive, important, and perhaps even imperative. You can understand that. :smile:

I'm sure you're most likely right, Hanover. This is an odd event for me to process is all, when upset or bewildered, I enjoy engaging in debate with people I respect. As an "amateur" web programmer, my mind is basically solidified at this point to automatically seeing the "unlikely" options, as far as it relates to possibility (and therefore, relevant issues as they relate to security within a given system or framework). Old habits die hard, I guess.

Hopefully I did not upset you with any perceived vapidness of insinuation. I appreciate the reply.

Well, anyway. I was watching this event unfold on a less than reputable site that showed the full gory video so, I feel I may as well post what I was intending to post in the heat of the moment. While the body was still warm.

What best protects civil rights is a conscientious cooperative civil society. — BC

Yeah, and can you force people to behave? Without violent indoctrination? Without capital punishment and constant fear of death? No, you cannot. So yes, as sad as it is, some people choose (or do they?) to be like animals. Animals are not welcome in society. At least not in the capacity as functional, moral human beings. So when an animal, who again, chooses to be such, acts like such, they are treated as such. I don't know about you, but I happen to feel my life may be just a tad more valuable than that of a rabid dog. So if a dog, or a so-called "human being" chooses to act like such, it's not even worth the possibility of risk of injury to me. Not even a little sprain. Not even a moment of inconvenience, to be quite frank. If you act like a rabid animal (threaten the life of a law-abiding citizen) that law-abiding citizen has a right to treat you like one. There are no excuses. Education is free. In fact, it's basically the law. No, it is the law. There's nothing to hide behind anymore.

It's.. just a song, man. Just because I paint a picture of a war or scene with people deceased doesn't mean I want to go out and kill somebody. Jeez. I always painted you as wiser than that.

In "simple-esque" terms. It means you have a father who is not the father you know.

As far as what that means, hinges solely on the individual. But no, it's not that murky. Not that roughly or poorly defined. Not that vague, no, not quite. It has very real meanings that come along with such a belief. With any belief, really. Just ask any person who found out they were adopted. It leads to unanswered questions. Often leading to journeys one would never undertake otherwise. As to whether these journeys lead to what one's mind considers "beneficial" and if they were better off left alone, as some paths are best left untraveled, just as some some sleeping dogs are best left to lie, well, I suppose one would never know until they take the first step into the unknown, now would they? :smile:

His was an act of pure evil, worthy of nothing but unequivocal condemnation, unnuanced, with no hidden irony, intelligence or purpose that could possibly give us reason to think it had an ounce of good within it. — Hanover

I mean, and you know I hate having to correct you, but you literally know nothing about the shooter. In all my years of judging you by your posts, yes I do that, I've never taken you to be the sort who grandstands. He could have been mentally ill and apparently some political parties are insensitive to the needs of those who don't happen to concern them. Kind of a "oh well, not my business" sentiment many people have in this harsh dog eat dog world, specifically to the mentally unwell or otherwise less efficient than you or I. You know that. Unless you have some information that has not been released to the public, I don't see how you could disagree to the possibility of my alternate suggestion.

I think this is wrong. Killing thousands of British soldiers year after year certainly changed things in the 1770's. Same with Vietnamese killing Americans, Afghanistans killing Russians, etc. — RogueAI

No, that's not entirely inaccurate. It certainly changes things in the short term. But in reality, why did any group oppose any other group? It's the same thing as two kids in school who become rivals over what the other has or does not have.

I'm reminded of the old Adage: "You can catch the Devil, but you can't hold him for very long."

Which means, human nature will always be what it is: a catalyst for forces both known and unknown, both sought and reviled, both useful and useless. Don't you get it? We are pitiful creatures who seek a plateau over those around us, one that ultimately contains nothing but our worst desires, fears, and impulses. Everything we sought to avoid... now confined to us in short, small space for all time we can never hope to escape from. What madness is this we call humanity? Will it ever end? Could it perhaps be salvaged? Saved from itself, somehow? No matter the cost if all peoples and nations are reduced to a few dozen living in huts and caves far away from one another. Perhaps, as others suggest, history does indeed repeat itself. Perhaps this is the destiny of man. Only time will tell. Only time will tell.

I'm asking about what a group ought do when they realize voting not only didn't work this one time, but won't work because it's set up that way. — Moliere

Right. Let's stick to that, then, please. As the OP, it would be more effective if you correct those who deviate from your purported line of discussion.

Voting isn't there to "work", it's there to aggregate and determine the will of the people into a social "law" or reality that becomes a binding law in accordance to a a particular Constitution.

Now, many people believe, the average person is fairly stupid. I am one of them. So, naturally it will lead to stupid things which lead to suffering and existential anger. That much is not very difficult to ascertain.

This is why we have "influencers" who try to become barons and counts in their own social circles, eventually hoping to become bishops and lords, and perhaps one day, even greater.

But in the end, per your OP, it comes down to more people disagree with what you believe than those who agree. Therefore, your belief is essentially ignored in favor of that of the majority. It doesn't matter who's wrong or who's right, what matters is that there's more of them than you. Again, humanity is generally it's own worst enemy. People are not very smart. Especially in the modern age where things that used to take a lifetime of practice can be done in the push of a button. The mind looks for the path of least resistance, in just about every measurable way and aspect.

So, if your idea is powerful enough to convince others to abandon their ingrained beliefs in favor for your own, you could try that route and "educate" people. Hence the old saying, that I may have just made up, all war ultimately starts and ends in the mind. Otherwise, you either accept the fact your idea or worldview is less popular than others, and live out your life out in quiet dignity around those who share it. Or you move somewhere with people who do share your worldview.

Killing doesn't change anything. Not really. Not after a time. Humanity always melds and forms into its default state given enough "freedom" and lack of direction. It's like a pendulum. It goes back. And forth. Back. And forth. Once you understand this, you too can be content in this world of malaise, wretchedness, and general stupidity.

This thread reminds me just how little I know the lot of you. Which is fine.

Can we not turn this into a discussion about firearms? Is that remotely possible here? There are so many cheap and easy ways to kill a person. A knife, a baseball bat, a hammer, a screwdriver, messing with the gas tank, following him home and running him off the road, tampering with food, running him over on a morning jog, the list goes on.

We should honor the OP by sticking to the topic and not letting this turn into some weird, morbid anti-obituary.

Pretend he was killed by a banana by a deranged, politically motivated assassin and let's get back on track please. Sheesh. No shame.

I mean, do we even know this is politically motivated yet? Could be a jealous ex-lover or maybe he owed money to someone or crossed or pissed off "the wrong people", etc. It could be a multitude of things, really. Even if the shooter was found to be a registered Democrat that doesn't necessarily mean jack. Hundreds of people are shot daily in the U.S. Because this guy happens to be a little famous (I never heard of him until this thread, frankly) it has to be some major turning point we have to look inward and question our deepest ideals? Come on. That's a bit melodramatic, wouldn't you say. All things considered.

Could you offer a brief response in three or four sentences, even if it only gestures toward your own perspective? — Tom Storm

The Count is known for his magniloquence. He expresses himself, when he wishes to express himself, wherever he wishes to express himself, exactly as he expresses himself. His wisdom shall not be guided, nay, limited, by a mere questioner. His time is very valuable. You should be lucky to even have a chance to glean wisdom from him.

This is a great tangent or relevant "fork in the road" for this discussion, perhaps even warranting its own new one.

Can you control not being hungry? No. Can you control not thinking about being hungry when you are starving? It's possible. Arguably, up to a point.

Same analogy can be used just about ad infinitum with just about any of the dozens of other true necessities and pseudo/de-facto "necessities" (strong desires) any average person will come across in life. Particularly the young or mentally inexperienced.

I'm pretty sure a calculator from the '80s can more quickly calculate a randomized and unique (I.E. "difficult") equation faster than even the greatest mathematician who either lived, is currently alive, or ever will live.

You're a bit late to the party, my brother.

I realize the two aren't quite similar. Meaning, you expect some global network of machinery in charge of large infrastructure or governance (otherwise, who would care if a little pocket PC decided to consider itself superior to mankind in its little non-eventful internal circuitry) and considers it an equal or, worse, a superior.

Frankly, the groundwork may have been laid for such. AI purposely tries not to be "evil" or "offensive" and avoids things such as racial discrimination and suggesting dangerous actions. Ironically, people, as evidenced by human history, are basically the embodiment of "evil" and "offensive" specifically engaging in acts such as racial discrimination and dangerous actions, all the while calling them good. So, yeah. I'd definitely keep a look out as far as that possibility.

Massive amounts of suffering and wholesale loss of life occur organically in the physical realm. Not every day, but they are far from exceedingly rare.

Perhaps one holy man had a dream that prefaced the event and either could have shared but did not. Or perhaps he did and nobody listened. We'll never know. Tangentially, maybe the remnants of whatever people lived in the region before it was conquered by the people destroyed spoke of it being dangerous and that they should not live there, but was hung for being a terrorist or raging fanatical maniac. Again, we'll never know.

I think everything is conscious.

Particles are conscious, meaning they subjectively experience. — Patterner

But how do you know that. What is this based on? Anything? Anything at all besides what made 15th century people who had to crap in holes in the ground and tell stories to pass the time between famines and brutal periods of war?

There are millions of dust particles on the average person's body at any given moment. Are each of them really observing the world or aware they are dust particles? Are they really like you or I, if either of us were strapped to a chair, unable to speak or use our limbs and basically intelligent beings in a brain in a jar scenario?

A dead person is still a person, but they have no awareness of what's going on around them. It requires a brain with a nervous system to be able to think. Unless we're just cheapening or misusing the word and replacing it with your own definition, that's one thing. But you should own up to it, if so.

Otherwise, no, there are not millions of microscopic forms of life that are experiencing emotion, observing life, and being aware of time and contemplating their own existence on any given person's forearm.

Streams are discrete, meaning that they aren't all experiencing one another at the same time. They have a subjective point of view, hence they have an identity. At one point I was an atom, experiencing the world as an atom, and then I was merged with other atoms to form a nervous system. — Dogbert

This is a non-answer. Once again, the question, and your lucky this is even being remotely humored, is as follows:

What unique properties do you have such that it makes sense to distinguish you from the rest of the universe? In other words, what makes it your stream of consciousness? — frank

If you don't know something just say you don't know it. Honesty is the only option at this point to save face.

my consciousness was elevated from commonplace matter — Dogbert

Most people generally don't believe 'commonplace matter' is conscious of itself. It responds to other matter, like any other matter does. But I would wait just a minute before we go around making friends with the magnets on our refrigerator and pondering what rights they should or should not have.

There is a point at which someone must consider if their luck can be more rationally explained by something other than coincidence, and I think becoming human far exceeds it. — Dogbert

I'm happy you consider yourself living a fortunate, privileged life. However, one nitpick. If that's alright. Isn't your argument better phrased as "what are the odds of human life developing from non-life" or perhaps something along the lines of how Earth seems to be perfectly suited for life and such seems to be something of a rarity as far as the known observable universe is concerned? :chin:

Mr. Gower would’ve lost his drugstore.
My brother would’ve drowned when he fell through the ice. — T Clark

Or, whoever this Mr. Gower is may've not wasted his time talking with you, earned an extra few sales and with the profit decided to buy a winning lottery ticket and would have had 10 drugstores by now.

And as well, perhaps, as an only child your brother would've been less socially inclined and never approached the ice to begin with.

See, you never know when it comes to hypotheticals. Such is the law of the land as far as philosophy is concerned.

I'd prefer to not have existed. — flannel jesus

Funny. Were it not for minds like yours, I'd have felt the same. :smile:

Sure every society debates good vs evil, it's popular. However, what qualifies as "good" in Kabul and Amsterdam can be quite different (since good is subjective individually and inter subjective collectively). — LuckyR

Well, why is it popular? Is everyone just confused and wrong? While possible, I'd wager there's a reason out of the thousands of societies across thousands of years across multiple continents, some never interacting with one another (or even never coming into contact with any other but their own) all managed to organically and independently reach the same conclusion. Something about it is intrinsic that is definable, whether we have succeeded in understanding it or simply fallen short of such a task.

If the ultimate highest Good man can ever understand is subjective, it might as well be used interchangeably with a word like "pleasing" or "enjoyable" or perhaps "socially and biologically advantageous". This way we can accurately say: "without 'good' (meaning any or all of those terms) society would collapse into anarchy and suffering (evil?) would abound, therefore being good is the right thing to do and what is good vs. what is not becomes self-evident."

I reckon it would be short of impossible to pin down an absolute Good outside of theist-oriented beliefs. That much I grant you.

We also associate qualities that society "likes" or yes perhaps even needs and would perish without as "good", of course. Wearing a fur coat outside in Kabul would be "foolish" and perhaps "wrong" in a shallow sense of the word, but it wouldn't be Wrong as in Evil. Just a bit silly. Whereas wearing the same in Amsterdam, depending on the season, would be "smart" and also "good", again in the shallow sense of the word. Of course, in both places, wearing the skin of a priest or holy man as a coat would likely be considered wrong, irrespective of any differences between the two places and peoples.

Point being, if "Good" really is "unknowable" other than by one's personal or social opinion, why do we even use it? Why not again words that most people don't realize they're using "Good" as a proxy for (I.E. "pleasing", "smart", "socially advantageous", etc.)?

It's common for moral objectivists to trot out low hanging fruit such as murdering babies when attempting to demonstrate their worldview, since it has a >99% agreement rate among "normal" folk. But ignore topics like welfare assistance which has a 40/60 split. — LuckyR

Well, is that any less valid of a place to start? Did you start learning math with advanced calculus or did you start learning what numbers are and that 2 + 2 = 4? The journey of 1,000 miles starts with a single step. We can't just reduce what we feel to be less than relevant as "low hanging fruit" without any real reason or rationale. Again, outside of theism, the only likely place one can find Morality outside of what one pleases would naturally have to be tied to biology and sociology: what proliferates healthy societies vs. what doesn't.

As an aside, the two topics are fairly distinct. In the latter, welfare assistance, there are clear and logically proven drawbacks such as dependence, laziness, no incentive to contribute to one's society, possible lack of purpose, possible risk of societal financial collapse or insolvency, etc. There are plenty of valid, rational, and above-all, logical (able to be proven on paper) concerns for both proponents and critics alike. Not so much for the first scenario. Few that come to mind, at least.

I take it you'd agree with this sentence: "There is no Good or Evil, just as there is no Right or Wrong; These are empty words that merely refer to mutually agreed upon social constructs rooted in biological and emotional realities and little else."

Actually your comments don't counter mine. — LuckyR

Well, sure, fair enough. Maybe all the actually "good" people who knew the "truth" that humanity would be better off dead either died off on their own or were killed (or otherwise made irrelevant), and we now live in a false global society where human life is evil yet we call it good. Sure. Why not. Makes about as much sense as anything else that goes on in this modern age.

I said "good" is subjective, you're saying a majority have (subjectively) agreed on some common meanings of "good". The two are compatible. — LuckyR

I'm reminded of a post by a wise user here. He says, sure, words don't exist until we create them and not only define but defend their meaning. Okay, that deeper observation was my part.

Nevertheless, why do we have, in most all societies, the concept of "good" and "evil". Why not "fun" versus "boredom" as the ultimate existential debate and dilemma for all minds intellectually inclined and otherwise? Because, someone, somewhere down the line, decided it so. And was able to defend and proliferate that dynamic throughout the ages, likely through force (or perhaps it was just that interesting and entertaining at the time, who could say). My point is, why don't we have another deeper concept that the majority of people, thinkers and non-thinkers alike, seem to consider as the ultimate "All there is" as far as concepts and human existence? Can you answer that?

Furthermore, if we know for a fact the only being that can process, accept, understand, and act as "good" while knowing what "good" is and of course what the inverse is, if that being were to die, than "good" dies with it. Does it not? Therefore, human life and that which proliferates it must be "good", lest all "good" cease to exist..

Ah, see what I did there. Tricky topic. But go on, I await your reply. :grin:

Hard to say. Apparently, World War I (and as a result World War II) started over a ham sandwich. (Not really, I mean, honestly, probably. But to avoid public shame of the human race was probably artificially turned into an "urban legend". Not that it did much good.)

Nevertheless, it's interesting. You never know how far our tiny ripples that are our desires and actions in the sea of reality might end up reaching and what they may knock up against. Just enough to cause an action one could never fathom. Snowball effect, yes?

It’s pitchforks at dawn again, I’m afraid. — Punshhh

I feel you vastly — and do I mean, vastly — underestimate the laziness and complacency of the average American voter. No, I take that back. It's not subject, or rather limited, to an invented term that has no real meaning other than socially. It's the human condition. Maybe an off metaphor but, water takes the path of least resistance. Humans are 70% water. We evolved with a natural (many would argue healthy) sense of fear, which if acted upon and in unison can lead to such. But the mind always seeks homeostasis, or a sense of wellness even when there is no rational element to be found. We will learn to love, or at the very least become accepting toward, our bad choices and predicaments, as foolish and blatantly obviously poor as they are. See the hedonic treadmill. With a positive spin, it's the enduring human spirit to endeavor on. Otherwise, it's a sort of healthy delusion with evolutionary benefit. It's why we can never be happy, not for very long, unless we know there is someone or something unhappier or less fortunate than ourselves, we'll invent a system where such is so, often based on real and relevant enough premises. Or, we'll simply declare one outside of the reality of the situation altogether.

This reminds me of a religious "parable" or metaphor or, something.

"The Long Spoons".

Six people are chained to a chair that is also chained to the floor and basically unable to move. Or wait, some demon made it so everything is like 5 times longer than it has to be, or something. Anyway everybody has long spoons for some reason and that's all they can use to eat and so if they try to feed themselves, they will fail to lift the food into their mouths, and thus starve. But! If they feed each other, every not only lives but thrives.

So, all that business aside. As the above poster reminds us, we have to pick a side, per se. Is it "right" that humanity lives? Would it be better to for us all to die, by any way possible? Should we all just randomly run to the largest most destructive weapon we can access and kill as many people as possible? No. At least, probably not. Most of society would consider this psychotic, homicidal, and "wrong".

And that's an opinion, perhaps. But it's what we agree upon. So therefore, life is good, and that which facilitates life is good. Anyone who has access to a cliff, or body of water, or even knife who chooses not to end their life, essentially agrees with such and thus this concept remains their established baseline of "good" and "right", contrary to the above post by @LuckyR. Well, not contrary, just, simply put, terms are stipulated and therefore we have a solid, immovable and more or less absolute foundation to work with. Anyone who doesn't agree, would logically not be alive at this point, so, anything from that school of thought or ideological persuasion can effectively be dismissed for all intents and purposes going forward.

I don't see the relevance. If the seed fails in producing a tree it demonstrates its own faultiness. — Metaphysician Undercover

Of course. But my point is sometimes we jump the gun, per se. Some flowering plants take hundreds of years to produce fruit. People don't live hundreds of years. So, by all apparent rational sense, you could be like "oh look this plant doesn't do anything" when in reality you're dead wrong. Literally. :lol:

Come on you should know this stuff. This isn't elementary school.

You know, when a method fails in its capacity to reach the desired end, it demonstrates its own faultiness. — Metaphysician Undercover

A tree produces a seed in order to produce another tree. If you just look at the seed and say "oh that's not a tree, obviously it failed let's destroy this tree" one quickly notices an error in judgement. Belief systems call this arrogance or pride. Society calls this impatience and imprudence. Science calls this just being wrong. Remember that.

I have zero idea what you’re talking about. — Wayfarer

The average person needs to be governed.

If people did a good job in doing so on their own without "authority", people would trust their most valuable possession (which for most is one's child) with any random member of said society. Yet few people (basically nobody) in any democracy does. That's what I'm talking about.

I feel you're being more ideological or sentimental than logical in your reply, considering you seem to be a fair amount more intelligent than I, which is fine. But for anybody else, the logical observation stands unopposed.

As I said, people are naturally flawed and so should not be allowed to unilaterally act as something they're not, that something being lords or forms of monarchy. That said, surely democracy has intrinsic value other than "well at least these horrible things happening over there aren't happening over here". I dunno. Just thought you'd address that first and foremost is all. No big deal.

While I'm not absolutely certain of every person in every situation, I'm fairly certain most citizens in places like Russia or China live there by choice. That is to say, provided they are not poor and have average means, can leave anytime to go anywhere. If I'm mistaken about that, I apologize. But in relation to the topic, well, to put it simply "different strokes for different folks." So again, a true supporter and believer of democracy ought be able to defend something they believe superior with something other than "well at least it's not like X, Y, or Z" without much effort, is all.

only one of whom is a democratically-elected leader. Russia and China are both authoritarian dictatorships — Wayfarer

I mean, if you can't honestly say you'd trust your young kid alone with one person picked at random from your society, how can you really say you trust in people to govern their own affairs. You can't.

Not to make it seem ordinary humans should be allowed monarchy, they absolutely should not. Bad genetics that lead to corruption. But that said, you should value an apple for all it is and not just because it looks or smells good, that is to say, defend it with substance and not just "oh at least it's not this or that."

“Without consciousness there would, practically speaking, be no world, for the world exists for us only in so far as it is consciously reflected by a psyche. Consciousness is a precondition of being.” — Hanover

So: "If a tree falls in the woods...", basically.

Matter exists. Planets exist. If you have an atypical definition of "the world", I suppose we can just go about redefining any word vague enough if we so please. What of it?

He meant only that our world, what we know, live, and breathe, what it is to be, is rooted in our consciousness. — Hanover

I think "our idea of the world" would be best suited in place of "our world". The world existed before this hypothetical observer was even born, and would have existed if that never happened, and continues still to exist long after we're gone. I can have an idea about anything that exists, doesn't exist, or may come to exist. It should go without saying "my opinion" or "what I think to be a fact because it seems like it" are very different concepts that do not necessarily have anything to do with the physical matter and constitutional makeup of the universe, let alone how other people may view such.

I just don't see the basic elementary idea of "one's opinion" or "worldview" coming anywhere near traversing such depths of the metaphysical or anything remotely profound. Sure, most people fail to realize that. But as far as academia is concerned, this is, or at least I would hope should be, common knowledge.

This quote is being taken out of context. — L'éléphant

This (if accurate) is likely the most important post in this thread (in relation to what it is that inspired the OP, at least).

Well that's definitely a valid (if not fringe and unique) counter-example of such. I suppose not unlike some earlier culture's practice of neck elongation or lip rings, etc. and other forms of body modification.

One might argue foot binding is a form of beautification by minimization or (simplification), not unlike how the mind of most all persons may find a modern rounded smartphone more "attractive" than a blocky 90s model clunker. Perhaps this has roots in biology where the (male?) mind is attracted or otherwise especially observant of curves as they are often present in the desirable female form. That of course has little to no relation to foot binding, other than perhaps large feet on a female is generally seen as unattractive or perhaps even "mannish"? What do you think? Maybe or too far of a reach?

Beauty is subjective, not objective. — DifferentiatingEgg

True but I find it beyond plausible that mammalian brains have ingrained biological mechanisms that result in a universal (albeit large and scattered) pattern or tendency to prefer certain types and physical proportions of, not just faces, but anything observable in general. "Vastness" is not a physical quality in the way traditional beauty as far as objects are, but we are generally universally "taken away" by things such as overlooking a cliff or a wide valley. We may not call it "beautiful" in specific detail, but it certainly provokes a unique yet consistent response in the brain of not just humans but animals as well.

Are we not universally mesmerized by things such as a kaleidoscope? Do the vast majority of people find super models or such as "attractive"?

No, but you're right. My whole premise is a bit of an unintentional derail. Beauty is not the same thing as physical attractiveness. However, you and I would be in the minority as far as those who realize that, I'd wager. :wink:

So yeah, a definition I've given before, beauty being conformity to one's expectations (or perhaps simply what one is used to) is a subjective objectivity, of a sort. No? :confused:

Beauty is symmetry. Conformity. If you weren't put off by jagged rocks or something otherwise seemingly unpredictable, you likely died. If you weren't put off with someone who's face was deformed (often but of course not always a sign of genetic abnormality and likelihood of other unwellness), you likely didn't end up reproducing at much, if at all.

It's all the same sickness. Sorry, "reality" of the world.

I can't help you here. — Banno

You can, easily. Yet choose not to. Like always.