Of course it’s millions of human lives, but whatever. — Mikie

How many of those lives do you actually appreciate?

I was being sarcastic. Pol Pot killed 10s of millions of people in his attempt make Cambodia an agrarian society. That is to say, I agree with your comment. Equality is not a virtuous objective. — Hanover

A strange sarcasm then, if you advocate classism but also shy back from means needed to put it into action.

It's a battle over economic policy, not over science. — Hanover

Equality is not a virtuous objective. — Hanover

Good luck trying to discuss this with the climate activists!

The suggestion is to form an orderly queue — unenlightened

People are reluctant to "form an orderly queue" already at a grocery store.
How do you propose to get them to wait patiently in line for their death?

A true friendship was built... :flower: — javi2541997

Except that I'm wearing black.

In this individualistic "me me me" society we've collectively nurtured a population into putting their own asses into a position where they believe they are the center of the universe, knowing all and having the ability to judge what is true or not. People are gullible idiots in their basic form and only their behavior towards knowledge define their ability to truly navigate the complexity of our reality. We've just entered an era in which the important lesson of handling knowledge with care has been pushed down by the ego of individuals. — Christoffer

And with this in mind, what do you think is the best way to approach people?

I've met plenty. — AmadeusD

Good for you then.

On avg (wrt my mental states), i side with climate activists at-base. The world is cool, and not ruining it seems like a good idea - and 'acting as if' climate change is happening certain seems the prudent route, whether you're a hard-liner or not.

Make no mistake, if it were up to me, I would populate the entire planet with plants, re-create natural environments as they were prior to humans.

I think that in order to effectively counteract human-caused climate heating, radical steps would need to be taken. Such as people not having any children for the next 30 years, not eating any animal products, forbidding luxury tourism, forbidding air conditioning, and so on. Obviously, this is not realistic. I suspect that many climate activists actually realize that only such radical steps might prove effective, but this is not something that can be said in polite society. What is currently being suggested as "effective steps to save the planet" (not using plastic bags, going paperless, carpooling, solar energy, etc.) amounts to rearranging chairs on the Titanic.

In order to actually stand a chance at "saving the planet", people would need to change the very nature of their relationship with the planet. That is, they would need to stop having a consumerist, materialist attitude toward it. This isn't happening, of course. Instead, people are being lulled into a false hope that by keeping their fundamental materialistic, consumerist attitudes intact and doing trifles, they can nevertheless "save the planet". And if that doesn't work out, the "solution" is already given: others are to blame.

That said, Mikie is the epitome of the obnoxious, over-emotional, can't-handle-a conversation type of activist who would be happy to torpedo anything in his life to ensure he gets to insult those who disagree with him adequately.

People like this are wasting what might very well be the last opportunity to do something that might make a real difference for the planet.

Part of me says that the world deserves Trump. — Hanover

Can't you see what you're doing? You might have an opportunity to change something, but you're wasting it by indulging in your sense of entitlement over others and in justifying being mean to them. As opposed to devising a strategy that might actually work in producing change in others.

You talked about "running them over":

Globally we need to run them over and change the course of how society operates — Christoffer

How do you plan to do that?

Basically any Mark Twain quote. — Lionino

How can you tell, since most of them are ironic or sarcastic anyway?

We may wonder whether there is such a thing as a "happy family", no one questions the abundance of unhappy families. What with oedipal conflicts, penis envies, death wishes, and run of the mill neuroses, one might say that "happy families" are merely simmering pots that haven't boiled over yet. — BC

There really are happy families, with no end to their happiness in sight. There really are such people. I don't know how come, but there really are such people. I guess they just lack all sense of drama.


As for "sounds great but is false": fake Buddha quotes. There's a whole website dedicated to them:
https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/all-fake-buddha-quotes/

That they take concepts, words and language and twist them does not mean the core of their sentences mean the same. That they manipulate people through twisting language just becomes another tool of power.

If people can't tell the difference between propaganda and analysis... well, then there's nothing to be done. If you can't understand the difference, then how could anything ever put you into expanded perspectives? — Christoffer

Since I don't believe that democracy is a good or viable way to organize society, the point is moot anyway. If anything, I'm a monarchist.

They're having elections in Pakistan. Many people there are illiterate, so the ballots have graphic symbols for each candidate. On the news, there was a short interview with an illiterate man, who said he voted for the candidate whose symbol is an eagle, because he likes eagles better than lions (a lion was a symbol for another candidate).
This example illustrates the depth of democracy rather well.

But yes, hey, your contempt is well-noted. So democratic.

It's not "Shakespearean". Please.
— baker

It's not wrong either.

"Shakespearean" implies a measure of class, dignity. There's no such thing in the political matters we're discussing.

It doesn't help to castigate a large portion of society over and over, no matter how good it may make one feel. — jgill

Which is what so much climate activism really seems to be all about: activists feeling good about themselves.

I actually yet have to meet a climate activist who doesn't give the impression that he/she doesn't actually care about the planet and who doesn't give the impression that he/she doesn't actually care about people. A climate activist who doesn't give the impression that all he/she really cares about is himself/herself.

If only Malcolm X had been nicer. If he really cared, he wouldn’t have been so cynical and hurt so many peoples delicate feelings— those poor victims. — Mikie

You're missing the point. The point is that your method is ineffective. Which you then simply excuse and blame others.

To each his own though. — Mikie

And thus you annull your climate activism efforts.

The issue is the negative attitude that many climate activists have toward people.
—

Sorry, but I just have to highlight how incredibly ignorant, judgmental, and immoral this comment is as well. Now that’s in keeping from a posturing, sanctimonious hypocrite who feels entitled to lecture everyone about their appearance while their own approach is being rude, shallow, contemptuous, and instigating — so no surprise there.

But it’s also a common line on conservative propaganda outlets — one of their many ways to undermine the consensus and overwhelming evidence, delay political and social action, and foster hostility (we see this especially in the vitriol aimed at Greta Thunberg) within the environmental movement. How sad. — Mikie

It's extremely offensive the way you assign to people stances they don't hold and then castigate them for them.

Fundamentally, there's no time to massage these truths into their brains. There's really literally no time to do so. Globally we need to run them over and change the course of how society operates, it's that dire of a situation.

The time to friendly massage people into understanding is over, it's either shut up and sit down while the grown ups fix things, or let things collapse until people beg for changes. — Christoffer

You're inconsistent.

This is the choice of that defines the coming decades of the world.

What choice, if you plan to "run them over"?

it is because hate and contempt are the easiest ones that we opt for — Ege

Not at all.
They must be learned.

It wasn't meant as a joke. Some people, esp. those more science-minded, seem to have no inner life.

A lot of fear that people refuse to address, refuse to introspect.
— baker
Absolutely! — L'éléphant

And it's a problem, because it makes them ineffective against those they oppose.

well, Baker can a benevolent prick. — L'éléphant

*sigh*

One thing that I find so peculiar (and for which I have gotten a lot of flak) is the almost complete lack of introspection, lack of self-reflection, and lack of applying the theme that is being discussed to oneself, on the spot. Esp. in Western philosophical discourse, any request for such is instantly dismissed as a fallacious ad hominem. I just don't understand this.

There is a whole existential meta-level to a philosophical discussion, yet esp. in Western settings, this meta-level is entirely off-limits, and anyone probing to this level is dismissed as a troll etc. etc. As if the norm of philosphical discussions is to engage in them, and then close the book, shut down the computer, and go and have a beer as if nothing happened.

Interested in how others think they’re perceived…and as a bonus: how different would these perceptions be in real life? — Mikie

I don't have to imagine this, I only need to think of things I've been actually told. A troll, boring, not cool enough.

This is pretty much how I feel most of the time here:



esp. around the forum greats.

(For example, I’m actually a nice guy in the real world! If I had any friends you could ask them.)

Bah, that's the thing with this forum: one never knows when one should read between the lines and when not.
And then there's the Old Boys club.

I think I’m mostly perceived as an asshole and a punk — Mikie

And proud of it!
It annulls your climate activism.

How does one read between the lines of a one-liner?

The mere action of kindness can bring a sense of euphoria to a person while hatred only brings more hatred towards each other — Ege

Yet people love to hate and despise. Perhaps the strongest emotion there is is contempt, and the most pleasurable one.

Possibly because moral propositional statements can have a predictable effect on people, and this predictability is useful somehow.
— baker
'useful' might be a virtue, something between achievement and accuracy. But, this is a problem with all virtues. There are 'uses' that are towards evil ends. So, how do we account for that? — Chet Hawkins

I meant usefulness in a meta sense.

"Be the bigger person and don't hold it against him that he [took your lunch/stole your lunch money/ took credit for your work/...]"

Uttering moral propositional statements can be used to control people -- for better or worse. My point is that just uttering them often has an effect, and a predictable one at that.

What determines the right way? Is it how most speakers of the language use the word? If the vast majority of Arabic speakers use the word "أخلاقي" to describe acts which are condoned by the Quran, and if the meaning of a word is determined by the things most speakers of the language use it to describe, then it would seem to follow that being condoned by the Quran is part of the meaning of the word "أخلاقي". — Michael

Philosophers don't seem to often use "The other person is wrong/inferior" as an explanation for differences in how people understand morality.

But in culture at large, in day-to-day dealings with people, "The other person is wrong/inferior" is probably the most common explanation for differences in how people understand morality. Even at a forum like this, "You're wrong/inferior" tends to at least lurk behind so many posters' arguments.

It's not clear what determines the right way to understand morality, but it seems to be central to a person's sense of morality to take for granted that they know, in an axiomatic manner, what is moral and what isn't.

Part of why theistic systems are muddled. — Banno

As if non-theistic aren't.

I would not call NDT a conservative
— Lionino
I would call him someone who doesn’t understand philosophy. — Joshs

Maybe he is a p-zombie.

If the words “ أخلاقي” and “moral” do mean the same thing then the other person’s reasoning is wrong, and the meaning of a word is not determined by the things it is used to describe. — Michael

Or else, some people are using the words "moral" or "أخلاقي" wrongly.

Your view reminds me of Madhyamaka Buddhism, but I doubt many scientists would take up a Buddhist philosophy to such a strong extent. — Leontiskos

Why do you think that is?
If they go so far as to venture into Buddhist philosophy at all, then why not do it properly? One would expect as much given their academic credentials.

Still, what are your thoughts on using idealism as a rhetorical ploy, along the lines of Stephen Law's "Going Nuclear"? — wonderer1

This wouldn't be an isolated case, as there is a whole school of Buddhist thought whose basic approach is reductio ad absurdum:

The Prāsaṅgika view holds reductio ad absurdum of essentialist viewpoints to be the most valid method of demonstrating emptiness of inherent existence, and that conventional things do not have a naturally occurring conventional identity.[1] Further, the Prāsaṅgika argue that when initially attempting to find the correct object of understanding - which is a mere absence or mere negation of impossible modes of existence - one should not use positivist statements about the nature of reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prasa%E1%B9%85gika_according_to_Tsongkhapa

Someone like Law would probably accuse the Prasangikas of "going nuclear", failing to see that there's no "ploy", rhetorical or otherwise.

I think it's sad that someone came up with the idea of accusing idealism as being a "rhetorical ploy". Such an accusation is a complete denial of lived experience.

Both Prasangikas and (some) idealists have one thing in common: they both hold that lived experience matters.

Isn't that the very nature of ethics? How we ought treat others? — Banno

Not necessarily. In theistic systems, morality/ethics is primarily about the relationship between God and man, and it's only about how we ought to treat others in the sense that this reflects on our relationship to God.

That's why I said if there's no Arabic word that means the same thing as 'moral' then they might not have a conception of good. — Michael

Google translates أخلاقي as "moral", "ethical". What is the basis of this translation?

Why do so many make moral propositional statements if they are not truth-apt? — Chet Hawkins

Possibly because moral propositional statements can have a predictable effect on people, and this predictability is useful somehow.

Straight out of a right-winger's playbook. I can turn on our local right-wing tv station or listen to the right-winger opposition in our parliament, and it's the same kind of talk, the same arguments, just the names are different.
— baker

What are you talking about? How is any of that right-wing? How is caring for democracy against the right-wing manipulation and power plays of demagogues even remotely similar to a right-wing playbook? — Christoffer

You do realize that right-wingers present themselves as the great "defenders of democracy"? That they accuse the centrists and lefties of "demagogy"? That they are "working hard" to "educate the people" and to open their eyes to make them "see the truth"?
This is right-winger language.

Caring for democracy is to get rid of the demagogues and the entire US system is built upon the actions of demagogues. Elections in the US are about appearances, not policies. It's about abstract values like "family" and "God", not philosophically sound moral principles. It's a theatre aimed at fooling the people to believe they have a good father or mother caring for them from their white house throne. It's an autocratic system in which an economic elite make shakespearian power plays for the throne and the servants in congress to play manipulation games while laws are controlled by a supreme court where enough deaths on one side can make the entire foundation of law fundamentally unbalanced.

It's not "Shakespearean". Please.

The fear is simply for the destruction of civil society that would ensue from his re-election, although I'm sure that it won't happen. — Wayfarer

Whence that fear?

Come on, as a Buddhist, you should do better.

If I'm so foolish, and if it's so obvious that's the case, why can no one show a tangible argument to refute anything I've said? — Brendan Golledge

Well, if a person makes claims of extraordinary achievement, what usually happens is that they get ridiculed or ignored. Sometimes, crucified. Drawn and quartered. Sometimes, people follow them with great devotion.

Such is the situation with those making claims of extraordinary achievement.

I get that so some extent, but young people must know that nothing gets done without political power, and letting the "drill, baby, drill" party have power is about the worst thing you can do for the planet. — RogueAI

Young people tend to be used to many material conveniences. How are they supposed to look forward to live without them?

But young people never vote and old people always do. It's just the way things are. I had higher hopes for this crop. We truly are facing an existential threat and we really could use higher youth turnout. There's really no excuse for not voting.

Who raised these young people?

*sigh*

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

If young people really believed the planet was a stake, they would spend a few hours every two years to do something about it. — RogueAI

Not necessarily. If they already feel hopeless about the long-term future of the planet, then they won't be motivated to do anything about it. And chances are they already feel hopeless. Add to this the patronizing and hostility they are exposed to, and you get a great number of passive, anxious, angry young people.

And then, of course, there are climate activists who believe that it is on the people themselves to find hope and motivation. On occasion, I actually still look to climate activists to provide some profound insight into the meaning of life as such, an insight that would give hope and motivation. And what do I get? Cynicism. They blame me. They dismiss me.

"Climate change" is a platitude of a phrase, "anthropogenic climate change" is not; climate is undeniably changing, as it always has been. The only debate is how much has been caused by us,
— Lionino

Ok, I’ll bite. How much do you think has been caused by us? — Joshs

How exactly is this line of inquiry helpful? Can you explain?
(Leaving aside how such a calculation should even be possible.)

When would humans be off the hook? If only 10% of global heating is their fault? Where do you draw the line? And why there?

We are fighting fire with fire and instead we should put out this fire of hatred in all of us by showing love,kindness and understanding and soon others will follow. — Ege

What on earth makes you think they'll follow??

Seriously. Can you explain why you think that "showing love, kindness, and understanding" can somehow overpower hatred and contempt? Where is there any evidence of "showing love, kindness, and understanding" having that kind of power?