Since when does commanding men have anything to do with realising how the world works? They came up with a constitution designed to protect certain interests and that is what it continues to do at the detriment of the general population. They're still suffering for it because the founders had no realisation what every day problems most people go through. So yes, a privileged few designed it without understanding what was needed in general.

The bloody history of the USA doesn't stretch voor millenia I'm afraid. It seems, in any case, a silly way of reconciling differences. While you think you're protecting your loved ones, so is the other guy who just happens to have a different assessment of what's right or wrong. From my point of view, outside the USA, either your or his death would be tragic and could probably be avoided.

They were priviliged white men with no clue as to how the world worked, hence, their constitution doesn't work either because they have no understanding about the human condition other than whatever constituted their days of lounging on their plantations.

1. Don't vote for abusive, authoritarian people that want to oppress you and you won't have to defend against the government. Basically, you don't trust that "the greatest democracy in the world" is a democracy.

2. How on earth did Gandhi manage without guns and all those other unarmed revolutionaries? The idea that the ability to do violence is what keeps you safe is rather naive. It has always been the ability to galvanise a large majority behind a single cause.

They may not be able to convince their colleagues to impeach but they can bring the truth to the American people. — Fooloso4

And you believe the American people care about the truth because...?

Another twat who gets his own thread.

In the US, political affiliation is too closely linked to identity for people to be ready to consider policies of the other party. Then there is the issue where you mention "perception"... Try running that through in the context of what I described before.

Right now, you've got a racist and probably a rapist as the elected president and in any case a mysogynistic dick. That he was a racist and a misogynist was known when he got elected. There's no amount of good policies that should excuse such character so we already know it wholeheartedly isn't anything to do with Trump's policies that got him elected. Thinking the "right" policies are going to defeat him just misses the point entirely how US elections are decided.

They care about policies indirectly: they care about themselves, so they are attracted to policies they perceive will benefit themselves. That means that "liberal" policies that help others don't attract voters (other than a core group of liberals like me), and will actually repel voters because of the perceived cost in taxes or deficits (or even opportunity cost - spending on someone else means you aren't spending for me) — Relativist

The assumption of considering people rational continues to astound me. Why do you believe this? Because you believe you're rational and therefore others must be too? If that were even remotely true advertisement wouldn't exist. Practically identical products wouldn't be priced wildly differently just because one of them has the right brand. Stores wouldn't try to differentiate on their "experience" for their customers. And the US presidential elections wouldn't be the nearly two year, billion dollar shit show it is now because, well, we'd only need facts and policies to decide.

US presidential elections are not about policies. US politics will cater to the rich no matter who holds the office. It's a matter of degree how much you'll be fucked and whether you'll thank them for the privilege, depending on which party you identify with. This whole discussion about centrist or left policies totally misses the obvious point that nobody cares about them in respect to elections.

Trump was elected because he was famous and he spoke truths people wanted to hear about criminal immigrants, lost glory and he does a fair impression of an alpha male.

The Democrats won seats because enough people were actually disgusted with Trump. If you want to win from Trump in an election, you need to not be Trump in some very obvious way. I'm not convinced the US is ready for a female leader though.

If you can get a white, straight, former military man who actually speaks the truth and is an actual alpha male instead of someone faking it, the dissonance will become immediately apparent and it will be an automatic win regardless of his policies, left out centrist, or lack thereof.

Cool, thanks.

There's no evidence that Trump had sexual contact with underage girls. It's not his style. He likes beauty queens, showgirls, glamour girls. Look at his wives. I don't believe he directly did anything.

If he did, I will personally lead the impeachment parade. Whether it was last week or twenty years ago. He will not get a pass for acts committed before he took office. Nobody in the country will be able to defend him. — fishfry

So rape is fine as long as it's not with minors? Or grabbing them by the pussy doesn't count as such?

Agreed, but the harder problem is about the epistemic justification for deciding whether a physical system different from our own is conscious. And the argument is that we have no way to really know, because our own consciousness does not tell us what it is about us that makes us conscious. It could be the brain stuff, it could be the functions performed by the brain, it could be both, or it could be that something else like panpsychism is the case. We just can't tell. — Marchesk

Is this a real problem though? I'm from the "common sense" approach that what's conscious is what people decide it is and it's neither here nor there why. It seems they're looking for an on off switch that means if it's there it's conscious and if it's not it isn't. Seems unnecessarily restrictive to me.

On the show, Data is always puzzled by some feature of common human behavior. Maybe he could convince someone he's autistic, except the can perform calculation and recitation of facts at a superhuman level if asked, and he usually does so unless told not to. — Marchesk

Second time I read the term "superhuman". The fact something is done at a superhuman level is now posited as an argument against something being conscious. Surely, that can't be right or even wat you mean but I can't escape that interpretation (twice). Maybe you can clarify. I also don't think being able to reproduce the full range of human emotion should be a prerequisite to be considered conscious.

Thanks. Unfortunately, or maybe I'm just stupid, I can't find an option to find the whole show from this morning. Am I not looking closely enough or is it really not there?

accessible via the net? I'm quite interested in hearing how that talk show is unfolding.

I want half Eddy, half!

Your insightful explanations are solicited. — unenlightened

Brexit means Brexit.

It is probably the weird assumption that the democratic voice of the people has spoken in the referendum, which was so narrowly in favour of Brexit that the only statistically relevant conclusion that could be made is that the people were hopelessly divided on the issue.

In a sense it's a righteously principled stance, the consequences be damned, because the principles of democracy trump everything else.

What does that say about the US electorate? Or maybe even about democracy? — Erik

It says "Plato was right".

I see your line of thinking as just as rigid as you see mine. Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree as it does not seem to me we will reach a consensus any time soon. — NKBJ

There's no consensus because you're simply wrong.

She lives, there is a chance (I would say very good, you may say very poor, so let's settle on 50%) that she will live a good life. — NKBJ

You think this is a negotiation? Then we're definitely not settling on 50-50 when you've already admitted treatment is woefully inadequate. The question might be what likelihood of no improvement would you require to allow for euthanasia?

Personally, I'd allow euthanasia when the likelihood of suicide, regardless of the level of suffering, is close to 100% as was the case here.

Go back to my previous post and please check between which two things I made the analogy and then you may realise your reply missed the mark. The comparison was between cars and treatments, not cars and people. That said there's a fine analogy to make with cars and people and mechanics and therapists as well. Nobody would then suggest cars equal people, which is a weird position to attribute to me.

There are simply those of us who wish this young lady were ALIVE and being TREATED and given the chance at HAPPINESS, instead of just giving up on her and letting her die a horrible, slow death because that's what's most convenient for people like you. — NKBJ

This misrepresents the case, she had 3 years of various therapy and therefore had been and was being treated. You've already stated before mental healthcare is woefully inadequate so by that estimation her chances for happiness are close to zero. It would then be a slow and horrible life until her 21st when she would be entitled to euthanasia.

In fact, she should've had access to euthanasia to avoid the horrible slow death she had now.

"Right to refuse treatment
You have the right to refuse medical treatment, including medication, unless ordered by a court. But you can be given care for personal hygiene or in an emergency without your agreement.

In exceptional situations, health care institutions can use force, isolation, medication or other types of restraints to prevent harm to you or someone else. The use of these methods must be minimal and must be noted in your medical record. " — Hanover

Yes, I read that and I recall we already went over the fact she wasn't legally incapacitated in which case the court cannot order any treatment. At least in the Netherlands.

That's great, but I hope you do realize that even their mental health care system is woefully inadequate. — NKBJ

This is a very pessimistic characterisation. My Skoda Octavia is not woefully inadequate simply because the ultimate car still has to be invented. It's entirely adequate but I won't win an F1 race with it. Most therapies that have been developed help, even if they don't cure every mental disease.

If you're a danger to yourself, you can have care forced upon you: https://www.educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/forced-hospitalization-three-types — Hanover

I thought you were a lawyer; forced hospitalisation is not forced treatment. In any case, het condition was not acute so the necessary requirement for her to be an immediate threat to herself wouldn't even stand so forced hospitalisation wouldn't even be possible.

As a general matter, life's not shit. That might be where we have a fundamental disagreement. I'm not suggesting there's not an extreme case of just an incredibly horrible life, but Noa's case isn't one of them. — Hanover

I think here I'll respect the primacy of experience. You might not find it extreme enough, but it was to her and that's the measure. Her suffering; not your arm chair estimation of what constitutes unbearable suffering.

As it stands, we just have an abysmal mental health care system. — NKBJ

As it is, the Dutch health care system is one of the best in the world and absolutely free for children up to 18 years old.

My guess ( and I could be wrong) is that you over simplify the prohibition against forced medical care in The Netherlands, as I assume there is a way to obtain a court order to impose care on those suffering psychological issues. If the rule is that the severely depressed must be permitted to live out the consequences of their self-neglect in all cases, the Dutch rule needs to be reconsidered. — Hanover

Only if you can show that she was incapable of making rational decisions and therefore legally incapacitated, in which case the decision would fall to her parents. Being depressed does not make you incapacitated though. In any case, het parents supported her to refuse treatment.

I strongly disagree that the rule needs to be changed. Doctors do not get to decide what treatment patients should get unless they are incapacitated. And as far as I'm aware, the US is no different where people refuse blood transfusions or donor organs that would save their lives on, for instance, religious grounds.

Hypothetically, would you have supported euthanasia in this case? — Hanover

Any easy call given the fact she ended up starving herself: yes, if only to avoid the suffering of starvation and dehydration itself. A shit life that ended shitty as well, could've at least avoided the shitty end.

Not knowing how it ended, I don't know whether I would've supported it in this specific instance since I'm not a psychiatrists and have little understanding of depressions and how much suffering that can entail.

I do know her story isn't unique. Even for adults suffering from depression euthanasia is often not open to them and results in a significant number of grisly suicides. I would like it to be better available for people who mentally suffer unbearably without any chance of improvement but I have no idea how realistic that is without it becoming to freely available.

My position is had she been euthanized or had she been allowed to die without active assistance, I'd be opposed because I believe the illness should be terminal before such decisions are permitted. That would mean there'd be a duty to intervene in some cases. — Hanover

The factor in deciding whether euthanisia is appropriate isn't whether it's terminal but the level of suffering and whether that situation can improve or not.

She was 17 and her parents would still have a say in whether the doctors should force treatment on her. They didn't.

It's all well and good to think you would make a different decision as a parent but you simply do not know what it would be like. It's questionable that you'd still agree if you would be in that situation. By all accounts her parents tried everything to treat her depression and eating disorder, which lasted 6 years since she was raped when she was 11. The 3 years refers to the second rape when she was 14.

I guess there will always be people like you...people who think they set the standards for what is good or bad, moral or immoral, right or wrong.

Best to deal with the likes of you by laughing at you. So...thanks. I needed a laugh right now. My game today was adequate, but not more than that. I sank my fair share of putts...and hit almost every fairway...but after the 18th hole, I was giving money...not collecting. — Frank Apisa

Thanks for trying to reason with the person who hasn't been raped but already knows he can live with it the next day as long as he's physically alright. I say "he" because only a man can be this obnoxiously stupid.

A 17 year Dutch girl was euthanized at her request with her mother's approval because she could not cope with the sexual abuse she experienced 3 years prior. https://www.foxnews.com/world/dutch-rape-victim-euthanasia — Hanover

It's probably been pointed out already but she committed suicide and this wasn't euthanisia. She starved herself and the Dutch code of ethics for doctors prohibits them to give treatment where this treatment is refused by the patient. (Just so that the moron who suggested to force feed her knows.)

You've called it an experiment and I think also vile. It isn't. The process is actually too strict with hopelessly depressed people like Noa Pothoven and others having to resort to suicide by jumping off buildings, in front of trains, hanging themselves and all that stuff that traumatise those left behind or those confronted with the act or its results in real life.

Euthanisia is part of palliative care. It's grounded in the principle to minimise suffering for patients. In most cases it's done either because people are quickly deteriorating with a disease that will kill them, avoiding needless suffering since the end can't be avoided or because they suffer to such an extent that even painkillers can't block the pain and there's no possibility for improvement. Euthanisia for mental suffering is very rare: they can be counted on one hand in any given year.

I'm not sure you understood what I wrote. Did what I write come off as an endorsement of Rand for some reason? — Terrapin Station

She's not taken seriously because objectivism is crap. When she's right, she's unoriginal and when she's wrong, it's clear she isn't aware of philosophical history and so obviously wrong it just makes her look stupid. Hence anyone downplaying the reasons for this by suggesting she's not taken seriously for irrational reasons is tacitly endorsing crap.

It just pushes us to think that those on the opposite side are simply jerks. — ssu

But I am a jerk to people who think Rand has anything useful to say. That's not for their benefit but for this site as to minimise their presence by making sure they don't feel welcome.

This question comes up periodically, and I thought I answered it again recently, but in a nutshell, it's a combo of

(a) initially she wrote fiction and it's difficult to move out of being pigeonholed (she's still popularly thought of as primarily a fiction author),

(b) she didn't develop or emerge from academic philosophy socially, and as unfortunate as it may be, it's much more difficult to "break in" to that world than it is to emerge from within its confines,

(c) she's seen as (i) not being a "systematic" philosopher and (ii) having a lot of wonky notions, having misunderstandings, etc. about previous philosophers and theories, and this is seen as an upshot of and justification for (b). Of course, many philosophers who are studied in universities, who are regularly published in academic journals, etc. also have issues with (i) and (ii), but they developed within academic philosophy. — Terrapin Station

What nonsense is this? Apart from the multitude of fallacies in her work, like deriving ethics from a logical tautology (I mean, wtf?!). She further grounds ethics in Aristotlean biology (eg. teleological) while that was totally debunked by Darwin well before she started writing.

Glad to know though I can from now on ignore everything you ever write here since you're incapable off recognising bullshit when it hits you in the face every third paragraph.

I kind of meant that in the ethical sense. :wink:

i was wondering, with the recent news that Kushner and Ivanka made 82 million last year, whether anyone knows anything at all they did for the nation last year. — ernestm

What did they do to earn 82 million?

But no. On the subject of Assange, everyone is suddenly very measured and rational. As if people want to salvage something from their former state of denial about the government's bad intentions and bad faith in this case. — fishfry

It seems to me you complain about what people take issue with in the Trump thread and his child separation and the intensity of their disapproval in this thread. Maybe you should start accepting people are different from you, have different views and different values and afford them some measure of respect instead of judging them all the time. It's bloody tiresome.

The US had to make a decision between throwing everything and the kitchen sink at him so that there's a higher probability something will stick when he's in a US court and a better chance for a successful extradition. They chose the former, which suggests to me the likelihood of conviction on all counts is very low. This was necessary then to request extradition for everything because it is not allowed to request extradition for something and then charge that person for additional crimes once extradited.

The death penalty is a no go in any case but I'm sure they have given assurances they won't pursue it or the extradition request would be stupid. That leaves the sheer amount of years and the extraordinary grounds that might suggest it's politically motivated or disproportionate. Unfortunately, disproportionately is a specific ground for the European Arrest Warrant so you can reason a contrario it doesn't apply to an extradition to the US. So I don't think the chances of UK courts refusing extradition are very high, just that there's a possibility.

Goodbye May, hello BoJo, Britain is screwed. Welcome to the EU, Wales and Scotland?

There can be no extradition in the event of a possibility of a death penalty. Presumably the extradition request will have assurances that the death penalty will not be imposed, which is how that is usually resolved.

The possible sentencing of up to 175 years in case of the other charges and the motivation behind them might be reason for a UK judge to refuse extradition as well. The fact a 102 years old law that has never been employed for this purpose is used and the possibly disproportionate sentencing period might lead to extraneous considerations to refuse extradition.

It doesn't prevent engagement, it enables it. — unenlightened

I think that's a false analogy. That's fine for a website, excluding people who don't meet certain criteria or who breach the rules. I'm not convinced exclusionary politics is a good idea when the rules haven't been breached (eg. still in accordance with the law). In fact, I think it's the opposite.

I've got some pretty racist family members. Yet I can still talk to them, work together and have fun at parties. They know I disagree and we even sometimes talk about racism and politics.

If I'd verbally attack their preferred candidate "oh, Thierry Baudet is such a douche" it's just me signalling I cannot be spoken to about his ideas without his ideas actually being deconstructed. But he has a platform precisely because people already agree with his ideas, which aren't novel at all. He's symptomatic of what exists in society. Deplatforming is effective at repressing symptoms and lowering its spread but ineffective against the disease itself.

I don't know, I think the notion of freedom of speech is pretty clear cut. Basically, hate speech is rightly disallowed. I guess the problem is that people can't agree on precisely what constitutes hate speech, or how overtly hateful it must to be to qualify as hate speech. — Janus

Funny how we have different interpretations of this thread. My take away is there is no consensus on what qualifies as speech. If "actions speak louder than words" and yet some here insist on a seemingly narrow definition of it involving spoken or written words, then there's a sea of meaningful difference. Not speaking in response to another is "speech" in itself in my view. And for those who don't believe it I suggest they not talk to their partner for a day.

I'm on the fence as to deplatforming but mostly because I worry about what it does to political engagement in general. If we shame people to stay quiet about beliefs they hold, there's exactly 0 chance of them changing their minds. Considering the alternative (social) media and communications channels available I suspect it inevitably leads to reinforcing existing bubbles, which just takes us farther away from constructive political debate. Plus, I think inviting certain controversial speakers usually isn't about real interest but trolling and then they can attack non-existent neo-Marxists academia and SJWs. Don't feed the trolls.