I suggest trying to support the claim any way that you can. Bear in mind that you need to show majority support.

Americans continue to make the claim that they are morally superior to everyone else. It is time that this claim be addressed, not as part of war between everyone else and the USA, and not as some relativistic doubletalk, but on the basis of values and institutions that actually make other nations superior to the USA.

• The other nations do not have people electing an overweight sociopathic narcissist man-child with orange skin and strange hair as their leader.
• The other nations do not have such poor freely chosen lifestyles that life expectancy is decreasing.
• The other nations do not have the highest incarceration rate. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners.

...

Other nations are morally superior to the USA. And it is time that more people say so outright.

For example, most liberals are in favor of there being some speech prohibitions. — Terrapin Station

Can you support this claim with evidence?

If you’re referring to things like SJW and “identity politics,” those are expressions of liberal values surrounding egalitarianism and concern for the well-being of the disenfranchised. A libertarian values liberty more than they care for the plight of the underclass.

And who really gives a fuck if a libertarian fool like Milo Yiannopoulos is talked down at college campuses by some impassioned adolescents.

This doesn't really help. I mean, as a juxtaposition think about the fine line between the Stoic school of thought and Cynicism.

Is the confusion clear now? — Wallows

Now I’m confused.

With an understanding that materialistic values tend to be shallow when it comes to meaning, and meaning is an essential facet of happiness, there should be no confusion. But this is not news for you, clearly, having read Victor Frankel and studied the stoics.

The strength of the bond, I suppose, if I understand what you’re asking.

Being materialistic is not conducive to happiness, essentially.

Though many people want to be happy I don’t think that many set out to be happy. Most just struggle to get by, and those that don’t need to struggle tend to seek money, status, pleasures, distractions, and things of that nature. Does anyone set out with the life goal of being happy? If most did, I doubt society would be as materialistic as is is.

According to selectorate theory the primary goal of a leader is to remain in power. To remain in power, leaders must maintain their winning coalition. When the winning coalition is small, as in autocracies, the leader will tend to use private goods to satisfy the coalition. When the winning coalition is large, as in democracies, the leader will tend to use public goods to satisfy the coalition. So though there’s no fundamental difference between types of government in this theory, democracy is the best choice for the most people.

Okay, say that we all started subscribing to the WH rhetoric, built a giant impenetrable concrete and steel border wall from sea to shining sea, and somehow managed to block all illegal drugs, guns, and gang members from entering the country from Mexico. Drug problem solved? Gang problem solved? Gun problem solved? Crime solved?
— praxis

In my opinion that rhetoric you are speaking of above is only exacerbating the perception or in this case the misconception of the complexity at the border that we are really encountering. I, nor anyone who knows the geography of our Southern border would advocate for a "border wall from sea to shining sea" so please, I am trying my best not to feed into the rhetoric. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

So inaccurate claims about the border situation exacerbate its complexity. Yeah, I can agree with that.

If you would be so kind to take an honest look at the link above, I think I might have a solution to the drug trap. I just ask, if you watch it to comment, if not then don't. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Sounds like it may be an effective approach.

There is a problem in our need/desire for the drugs and it no longer being able to be produced in backyard labs in the USA, as the crack down on the purchase of the ingredients was effective. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

I wouldn't say that diminished domestic production of illicit drugs was a problem. In a quick google search I couldn't find anything supporting the claim that illicit synthetic opioids or meth production is impossible or severely hampered in the US.

When someone is here illegally, they cannot legally work. If you cannot find work and have no way to provide for your family here in the USA are you going to leave and head to Canada? How many will many have any choice other than to resort to crime out of desperation? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

From factcheck.org:

there aren’t readily available nationwide crime statistics broken down by immigration status. But the available research that estimates the relationship between illegal immigration and crime generally shows an association with lower crime rates.

A fine line between that and an American liberal?

Libertarianism isn't making an ideological statement about the level of government control. It's just asking for less because the members of the movement don't happen to like being controlled in the way they currently are. — Isaac

I’m no expert on libertarianism but I believe the basic ideology is that a free market or economy is self regulating and is made worse or less efficient by government interference.

I call myself a "libertarian socialist" now. — Terrapin Station

That sounds like an oxymoron. Could you maybe outline that a bit?

In one of my old threads, I mentioned a quote from Krishnamurti that 'truth is a pathless land'.

I have come to realize that this quote would reverberate more within an individual reading it had K said, "Happiness is a pathless land." — Wallows

Truth is a pathless land makes sense to me because if you’re truely interested in the truth you’ll follow it wherever it leads, and it tends to be disillusioning, which tends to be nihilistic.

Happiness is not a pathless land. The path is so well worn most don’t need a guide.

The objective is the smallest government sustainable, so that more government or control doesn't arise in its wake. — Terrapin Station

Small government and sustainability are two very different objectives. Both of them are beneficial but pursuing one may get you further away from the other. I imagine it's safe to say that libertarians are more interested in small government than they are in sustainability. Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.

What is the solution to this? — Ilya B Shambat

You said it:

eviscerate — Ilya B Shambat

But seriously, you don’t need to respect different people to try understanding and cooperating with them. That seems disingenuous and perhaps condescending.

The right balance may have been to refocus CBP at the ports of entry and only allow commercial vehicles across the border, that way they can be properly inspected for the detection of drugs that are coming in and reduce the damage that will be done on the economic stability of both countries. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Okay, say that we all started subscribing to the WH rhetoric, built a giant impenetrable concrete and steel border wall from sea to shining sea, and somehow managed to block all illegal drugs, guns, and gang members from entering the country from Mexico. Drug problem solved? Gang problem solved? Gun problem solved? Crime solved?

It would have an effect of course but you must realize how politicized these issues are. If we really cared about American drug abuse, gang violence, gun control!?, and crime in general, is this really the best approach to effectively address it?

Why do christian pastors feel the need to say christianity is not a religion? — James Statter

Oddly, it's at once what all religious folk should claim and the very height of hypocrisy.

If something is known to be true then it's not a belief, it's just the way things are, so in that way a religion may not be a religion. The problem is twofold however, firstly, if you know something then you can explain it. No one can explain the vagaries in religious beliefs. A religious authority may claim that such things are beyond human comprehension and therefore cannot be explained. That doesn't negate the fact that they still don't know.

Secondly, if you know something is true then you'll behave accordingly. For example, if you knew with certainty that if you followed the law you'd literally receive a heavenly reward, and it was impossible to avoid the most severe punishment conceivable for any transgression, you'd follow the law. In truth, the heaven/hell polarization is neither realistic or particularly motivating.

It's not that religious people don't value truth, it's that they value solidarity with a group, a group who shares their values and goals, more than they value truth. When someone says that they're "a religious person," to me that means that they value solidarity with a particular group more than they value truth. It's not a declaration of virtue. The solidarity that they value could be expressed in rather unvirtuous ways.

I don't think anyone actually believed that Trump could get away with closing the border, though I think we know he's capable of actually doing something that stupid.

The threat of placing tariffs on Mexican car imports, a year from now without compliance with his demands, is weird but maybe works for him? For his supporters, he gets to appear to be the tough guy who mussels Mexico into compliance, and they'll forget about it by next week. Unfortunately, the auto industry doesn't have the luxury to possess such a short memory. An industry like that requires long-range planning, investment, and so benefits from predictability.

And just like that he's going to renege on the trade agreement that he's been bragging about for months and hasn't even been ratified yet? A good deal maker should at least try to appear somewhat trustworthy.

The businessman is not a thief; he is someone who gets things done. And religion is not “the opium for the masses.” — Ilya B Shambat

Communist economies can get things done. Remember Sputnik and Luna? The Soviets beat all capitalist countries to space and the moon. Capitalism, with its profit motive, is believed to promote efficiency and innovation. In a self-sufficient economy or one that doesn't compete with capitalist economies that may not be a problem, and there may be other ways to promote efficiency and innovation without the profit motive.

I do think it's a mistake to under-appreciate the role that religion plays in society. We have a natural desire for meaning, I believe, and that desire centers around bonding groups together with common values and purpose. It can be a powerful opiate. Much too powerful to ignore.

Marxists claim to speak for the working classes, but so do Christian and Islamic fundamentalists. — Ilya B Shambat

Socialism has a lot to say to a capitalist industrialist, at least if they're at all interested in stability and sustainability. I doubt any Christian or Islamic fundamentalist would claim to speak only for the working class.

In America, we see a phenomenon that inverts the claims of Karl Marx. There are more Marxists among the “elites” than there are among the “masses”; and there are more conservative people among the “masses” than there are among the “elites.” — Ilya B Shambat

Liberals are naturally receptive to progressive or socialist ideas, if that's what you're trying to say, and conservatives may have a natural tendency to be unprogressive and share traditional values that favor sensibilities like authority, loyalty, and sanctity.

I don't know if it makes much sense to characterize American economic classes as 'elites' vs the 'masses'. Half of Americans are middle class. In any case, statistically, conservatives tend to be wealthier, although there are many aspects to consider as to why an American economic class might be more or less liberal or conservative.

You pass three bums begging on the street. One is a shabby but cute white guy; one is a drunk black guy; one is a down and out white hooker. Which one is going to get the extra dollar you have in your pocket? — Bitter Crank

If the hooker is truely down and out a dollar should be enough.

Marx claimed to champion “the working class,” but his message has carried greatest appeal in the West to the well-off students and academics. — Ilya B Shambat

When higher education is unaffordable and the primary educational system is weak, the bulk of the population lacks the knowledge that it needs to make informed political and personal decisions. — Ilya B Shambat

An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free [democratic] people. — Thomas Jefferson

Democracy is the road to socialism. — Karl Marx

The masses or “working class” in Lenin and Stalin communism were illiterate peasants, it might be noted, so the road was well paved for totalitarianism.

As for American populism, I’m sure the rising cost of education isn’t helping. Maybe progressive (dare I say socialist) initiatives can help with that.

Iceland, in 2018 anyway. Icelandic culture must be pretty chill. :razz:

Of course I don't mean currently. — Anthony

Looking forward to your evidence showing that "Tibet was the most peaceful culture ever," because of Buddhism.

In the meantime, what, Buddhism doesn't age well?

Some things don't change. The ratio of a circle's diameter to its circumference is one example. — petrichor

The decimal representation of Pi never ends and never settles into a permanently repeating pattern.

In any case, change is itself a mental perception. If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? However we might answer that question one thing is sure, if we did hear it something changed.

Tibet was the most peaceful culture ever for a reason. — Anthony

Was it? If so, there could be many reasons for that.

I just looked up statistics for peaceful countries and Buddhism for 2018. They rank as follows:

Cambodia (97% Buddhist) is 96th most peaceful out of 163 countries.
Thailand (93%) 112th
Myanmar (88%) 122nd

The country with the most Buddhists, 244 million (including Tibetans), ranks 112th

Not impressive at all and many Western countries are more peaceful. Indeed the United States (1.2% Buddhist) ranks better than Myanmar, although just barely at 121st.

That’s another dodge. The choice is yours not some group of random people. — I like sushi

Hey, this is America, a democracy. Oh wait, I'm supposed to be the world leader. Well, if I was the world leader it would be a democracy.

Then your family wold be murdered, you cool with that? — Anaxagoras

I'd call them first to grab their bug-out bags and head for the family bunker. We knew this would happen eventually.

This is the scenario:

The human race will die unless a billion people are killed tomorrow. You are the world leader and have to decide who dies.

You are NOT allowed to use any form of lottery system. — I like sushi

Easy peasy lemon squeezy, I’d simply make a global announcement of the situation and suggest, to anyone who wants to live past tomorrow, that they kill as many people as they can the next day.

Unfortunately, if it worked the world would be populated by sociopaths. :sad:

Thus I've come to realize practicing Buddhism in western culture is almost too difficult. Our culture is anti Buddhist in every conceivable way. It may be possible to apply bits and pieces of it in the morning and before bed; when the willy-nilly commercialized life takes over at work and in relationship, Buddhism isn't there..the worldly dhammas take control (learned classical conditioning). — Anthony

Eastern culture is believed to not value individualism as much as Westerners, but it’s not like that doesn’t have a downside as well. You sound guilty of the common mistake of over-romanticizing the East.

What is this ‘view from nowhere’ you refer to? — Possibility

It's from Thomas Nagel.

Can you theorize this viewpoint even in a limited position such as a single human being? — Possibility

Yes, I did.

Is one able to reach a point in their life where there’s nothing to do, no potential, nothing that they could be, and nothing to develop? — Possibility

I don't know, but Buddhists call this the realization of emptiness.

What leads you to think any perspective of the universe could ever reach this point? — Possibility

The point was basically that values and goals would shift with, I will say mind for the sake of brevity, expansion. I think you agreed with that.

How do we decide which values are ‘inhuman’? Can you name some? — Possibility

Not valuing life would be inhuman. Not valuing pleasure or happiness would be inhuman.

Where does one draw the line, and is that based on knowledge or judgement? — Possibility

To quote myself, "where order loses integrity," and based on knowledge and judgment.

What if life and the universe really did need our species - we just haven’t yet developed the collective awareness to fulfill our potential. What if all this colossal messing up, all this pain and loss, is the most effective way to develop that awareness? — Possibility

The late comedian George Carlin had a bit where he speculated about the role humanity plays in the evolution of earth. We're here to produce plastic.

How does shared meaning require shared values and goals? — creativesoul

I was thinking of this question with the relationship between Red (my dog) and myself in mind. I have many values and goals that Red doesn't, and vice-versa. His interest in sniffing the urine on tree trucks, for example, is of no interest to me. I have a vague notion of what that's about, a kind of canine communication about territory and perhaps other things. There's a sphere of canine meaning there that's entirely lost on me. Conversely, Red has no idea what I'm doing sitting in front of this computer typing away. The sphere of meaning that we share is entirely lost on him.

Red and I share meaning where our values and goals are congruent. For us, that centers around food and various activities, also security I suppose. We both value security and maintain a territory with the goal of security. I understand that's basically how ancient people and wolves were able to first come together. They were both social species and both valued the same kind of food and security.

In a news conference today, Trump claimed that one benefit of closing the southern border is that it would stop "hundreds of millions of dollars of drugs" from coming into the US. Apparently, he knows that the vast majority of drugs smuggled into the US is through legal ports of entry.

Not necessarily that spooky, though. We may also notice it in the little unexplained things that we tentatively accept as part of the human experience. Like falling in love, kindred spirits, the ‘presence’ or disembodied ‘voice’ of a deceased loved one, a connection to ancestral lands, gut instinct, intuition, vibes and other ‘weird feelings’ people get about situations or interactions that they can’t quite explain and often dismiss until other more ‘objective’ evidence vindicates their initial response.

All of this points to a way of interacting with and deriving information from the universe that we keep trying to ignore because we can’t prove to others that we really experienced it. It also includes the capacity and desire to relate on a personal level with ancient expressions of human experience, with animals, with distant planets, etc - not just intellectually with the facts or evidence. — Possibility

With the exception of 'disembodied voices' and 'relating on a personal level to distant planets', you basically appear to be talking about in intuition and our modern devaluation of it.

And ghosts aren't spooky?

Identity is either understood as socially constructed or simply the condition of being oneself and not another. When the ‘self’ expands in awareness, I would think that ‘identity’ is irrelevant either way. — Possibility

When identity expands to encompass the universe or whatever, there seems to be a tendency for the ego to correspondingly expand, and that's never a good thing.

It’s not a matter of fixing what’s ‘wrong’ with the world now (as you say, everything is perfect just as it is), but about realistically understanding what the universe could be, and then doing what we can in each brief but potentially universally interconnected life to develop that. — Possibility

I'm theorizing that with 'a view from nowhere' there's nothing to do, no potential, nothing that the universe could be, and nothing to develop.

Perhaps in your opinion, but what I said was that your judgement, not the solution itself, was based on actuality: on what is or was, rather than what could be. The tricky thing about rational thought is that one must first imagine or define an actual future solution in order to evaluate it. You cannot evaluate potentiality, because you cannot define or measure it without collapsing it into an actuality. That doesn’t make it nothing - it only makes it fuzzy at best. — Possibility

Granted our species might have the potential to not ruin the world for ourselves and other life, but it's not looking good at the moment.

I don’t think our human values are inescapable. We are not bound by our physical form or existence in terms of interacting with the universe. — Possibility

Mind/matter is bound by order. If that order loses integrity then a being ceases to be what it was, so there is no escaping order or form. If a human being came to possess inhuman values then it would no longer be human.

By ‘our potential’, I refer to our capacity to develop, achieve and succeed - not as individuals, but collectively, and not for the benefit of our species, but in order to develop life and the universe itself to its fullest potential. — Possibility

What do you mean by developing life and the universe itself to its fullest potential? Life and the universe doesn't need us to develop, and as I mentioned, life on this planet will without a doubt flourish far better without us. 1k - 10k times the baseline extinction rate with us on the planet. Yikes!

I think that this is why we have these metaphysical experiences. — Possibility

We have intuition, hear disembodied voices, and relate on a personal level to distant planets in order to develop life and the universe to its fullest potential?

What is the fullest potential of life and the universe anyway?

I guess what I’m saying is that across subjective experience there appears to be a metaphysical connection that underlies, promotes and transcends all instances of observable or ‘reasonable’ connections: physical, biological/genetic, ideological, etc. Many have referred to it as a ‘spiritual connection’ for want of a better term, but I think that invites some people to abandon reason, rather than just get it to step back a little and reserve judgment. — Possibility

Psychic phenomena basically, right? Like Ilya B Shambat mentions in his linked blog post.

It's identity and reason that allows us to imagine that we're an individual human being or the entire universe.
— praxis

Not in all instances - There are plenty of ‘spiritual’ practices that don’t so much ‘imagine’ as ‘feel’ this experience, and in most cases the resulting experience is more profound than simply imagining, because it engages the whole body in the experience, not just the mind. But for those of us who prefer to keep reason in the picture at all times, imagining is as close as we will probably get. — Possibility

Imagining and/or feeling that we're the entire universe is still trading one identity for the another.

What are the intents and purposes of the entire universe? All intents and purposes, I imagine, which means no intents and purposes. In the view from nowhere everything is perfect just as it is.

This seems like quite a leap - reason is so quick to judge, isn’t it? This judgement of the ‘best solution’ is based on actuality, rather than potentiality. — Possibility

Actually, it's not actually the best solution, but it's potentially the best solution.

if we can reserve judgement and explore the potential of human beings to work together, to show compassion, to find solutions and put them in place, then the best solution is not to eliminate, but to strive to realise our potential. That probably sounds overly optimistic, but I think it’s actually more ‘reasonable’ and broad-minded than your suggestion. — Possibility

The solution I mentioned is not reasonable at all. It was meant to demonstrate the inescapability of our human values. We will explore our potential no matter what the cost to other species.

If you’re asking me to define a specific metaphysics so that it can be quantified, measured and evaluated, then I’m afraid you may have the wrong idea of what I understand metaphysics to be. For example, what we define as ‘energy’ is essentially metaphysical in nature, but what we quantify, measure and evaluate is the way our sense data interacts with the way this ‘energy’ interacts with what we define as ‘matter’. Yet we refer to both ‘energy’ and ‘matter’ as if they are physical entities that we can define, control and manipulate. Metaphysics as I understand it is about interactions and relationships between the underlying events we strive to understand subjectively, not the entities we can define and ‘know’ objectively.

Interconnectedness is intertwined with both awareness and love (as actualizing potentiality) in my experience... — Possibility

I was inquiring about any metaphysical claims or theories you might have that would clarify or help to substantiate "interconnectedness beyond our physical existence," I suppose. It's not clear what you mean by that. Are you claiming, for instance, that there are two types of 'connections', one physical and one non-physical?

In a metaphysical context, the ‘self’ in question has the potential to be the infinite and eternal universe, limited only by our awareness. — Possibility

It's identity and reason that allows us to imagine that we're an individual human being or the entire universe.

we can develop awareness of a fundamental connection not just with family and ‘loved ones’, but with all of humanity, life in general and the universe itself, stretching across space and time - not in the sense of a hierarchy of evaluated connections in reference to the physical existence of ‘self’, but all with the same potential strength and value. — Possibility

Wouldn't our values shift with this broadened awareness? For instance, if we valued all life equally how would that affect our actions? Because of our species, the extinction rate on earth is 1,000 to 10,000 times the natural rate. If we loved all life equally, quantity and diversity should matter. And if that were the case, the best solution to resolve the loss of life would be to eliminate our species. Quite literally a self-defeating philosophy.

From the article:
— praxis

“It creates the perception of a crisis,” Stancliff said of ICE’s highly visible mass drop-offs of families without onward travel arrangements. “It creates the perception that we are overwhelmed by people being released from detention.”

Thank you for at least reading what I am posting. I greatly appreciate it. The perception of a crisis is in the eye of those charged with handling the it. For me? The reported 18,500 people being supported by our churches and ngo are a slight indicator of how many are actually making it in. Even still, three months 18.5k people? At this rate, by years end, we will have absorbed an entire city. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

My interpretation of the article is that bottleneck in transportation creates the “perception” of a crisis and that those arriving will disperse throughout the country and not overtax the area of the bottleneck for long.

Incidentally, your posts on the subject have been brimming with emotion. If you’re just venting that’s cool, but you might express it in a way that others can more easily empathize. If it’s intentional and designed to be persuasive, probably not a good call for this audience.

In any case I’m sorry for your distress and I’m inspired to check with my representatives regarding immigration reform.

Psychic comes across to me as being very similar to spiritual. — Ilya B Shambat

Viewing them as synonymous seems to imply that psychic phenomenon indicate something about the nature of our spirit, like dualism or that mind is not dependent on matter.

Specifically what metaphysics are you referring to?

Interconnectedness is, in itself, morally benign. It doesn’t inform or imply what we ought to do in any particular situation or moral dilemma. It implies that our actions can have far reaching effects but says nothing about the virtue or vice of any action. Ruining the environment for other species and ourselves doesn’t violate the concept of interconnectedness, at least not unless the term has special meaning not expressed in the name itself. If if did, the core of that meaning would be based in self-interest.

We can act responsibly and cooperatively for mutual benefit, and that seems to be the best strategy to flourish or maintain order, but it’s ultimately based in self-interest.

Existential authenticity — Terrapin Station

Gotta hate fake existence.

My view of morality is that nurture interacts with nature - to either encourage an internal awareness and understanding of interconnectedness through which ‘moral intuitions’ become apparent, or to impose a moral code or set of norms that may or may not fully align with what awareness/understanding one may have of interconnectedness. — Possibility

I'm thinking that the concept of interconnectedness may lead to moral intuition when it becomes apparent that it can serve our self-interest. Like a farmer who hates bees and would like to eradicate them, because she was stung as a child or whatever, but does everything she can to help them flourish because she knows that her crops will fail without them.