If she does not want to be a mother and/or does not have the ability to provide for the child, the effect of her pregnancy will not be good. — Athena

Unwilling parents have been known to rise to the occasion and a child add much to their lives, so the overall effect could turn out to be good in many cases, in which case your cause-and-effect moral theory doesn't pan-out so well.

Wow— very well thought out and elaborate. Thanks Praxis! — Mikie

My personal assistant (ChatGPT) should actually be thanked for all the thinking and elaboration. :snicker:

One of the main interesting things about this amazing debate we are having, is that you folks are given for granted that I root for Republicans when I am not even American. — javi2541997

I know you're not American. This is a discussion about American politics, or rather, a discussion about an American politician, so of course it will default to that. I know practically nothing about the current politics in Spain although I know there is a general distinction between socialism and conservatism. I would be surprised, actually, if you were a Trump supporter, even though Trump is very anti-socialist.

Why did they have such confidence in this system when it is clear that it is flawed? — javi2541997

It's not at all clear that American mail-in voting is significantly flawed. Have you in any way shown that it is?

I am sorry, I do not follow what you are saying. You are saying "no" to what? — Athena

I pointed out that a religion is not "as we make it". It's highly dogmatic by nature, in other words, and when revisions are made it's by religious leaders. Followers are not free to make up their own beliefs and promote them within a religion. That would be considered heretical.

Even atheists are sure what a god is and it is not possible to discuss logos and the prime mover with them because they absolutely can not give up their understanding of a humanized god. — Athena

I'm aware of various of conceptions of God, some very unlike the one depicted in the Bible. I see no reason why an atheist would be unable to consider an inhuman God. Indeed, the God depicted in the Bible strikes me as extremely inhuman.

Also, religions don't all agree on logos and the prime mover. There is no prime mover in Buddhism, for instance, and they'd consider the dualism inherent in logos an expression of ignorance.

They absolutely insist all discussions of god match the Christian notion of a god and therefore it is impossible to discuss a notion of god as forces of nature with no human qualities. — Athena

It doesn't make any sense to me why an atheist would be unable to discuss the notion of god as a force of nature with no human qualities. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, I was responding to your claim about a religion. Of course, individuals can have their own spiritual experiences and beliefs.

Democracy can be a religion. — Athena

No, that would be a Theocracy.

Anyone who does not hold our understanding of truth is an idiot, right? — Athena

Within religion, anyone who does not hold the "understanding" of Truth is considered to have no faith. I use scare quotes because no religion has understandable truths, by design. Ultimate truth requires ultimate authority, ensuring a hierarchy of leaders (who have special access to ultimate truth) and followers.

I don't know about Spain (and I can't read Spanish) but the US postal service is quite reliable.

Regarding rejected votes due to human errors in mail-in voting, as well as mail-in votes lost in the mail, both would seems to favor Republicans.

Why do I have to believe in the mail voting system? — javi2541997

Why would someone not believe in mail-in voting? Hopefully because there is evidence that shows it’s unreliable and not because a politician says it’s unreliable.

Btw, if voting systems are prone to fraud, how do we know that only democrats abuse it? Maybe the cheaters are republicans.

From what I know of Spanish history I would expect socialism to be less popular there than in the States. Actually I have that backwards, Franco was conservative.

2) the "mob" (as flannel jesus says) tend to be more active in the right, because, believe it or not, these voters tend to have more confidence in the state. Meanwhile, leftists just do not go to vote because it is an act "against the system". — javi2541997

Socialists are usually accused of having too much confidence in the state and left to their own devices they’d walk wide-eyed into an Orwellian dystopia. On the other hand, American conservatives tend to believe that the state is inherently incompetent and corrupt and that’s the justification for wanting it to be as small as possible.

people vote left because they are fearful. — javi2541997

In America right-wing politicians tend to use fear tactics. Just look at Trump for example.

Kant was a walker.

I usually walk the dog two miles a day and do think it helps thinking because…

• Increased Blood Flow: Walking gets your blood pumping, including blood flow to the brain. This enhanced circulation ensures that your brain receives more oxygen and nutrients, which can improve cognitive function.
  
• Stress Reduction: Walking can help reduce stress and anxiety levels. When you're less stressed, your mind can focus better and think more clearly. The rhythmic and repetitive nature of walking can also have a calming effect on the mind.
  
• Creative Thinking: Many people find that walking helps stimulate creative thinking. The combination of physical activity and being outdoors (if you're walking outdoors) can provide a change of scenery and break from routine, which can boost creativity and problem-solving abilities.
  
• Mindfulness and Reflection: Walking can serve as a form of mindfulness or meditation. As you walk, you may become more aware of your surroundings and your thoughts. This mindfulness can lead to increased self-reflection and a deeper understanding of your thoughts and ideas.
  
• Enhanced Connectivity: Walking can foster connectivity between different regions of the brain. Researchers have found that it can improve the connectivity of the default mode network (DMN), which is associated with introspection, daydreaming, and creative thinking.
  
• Break from Screen Time: In our increasingly digital world, taking a break from screens and technology by going for a walk can be refreshing. This screen-free time allows your brain to relax and recharge, potentially leading to improved cognitive performance afterward.
  
• Mood Enhancement: Physical activity, including walking, can release endorphins, which are natural mood lifters. A better mood can lead to clearer thinking and improved decision-making.
  
• Problem Solving: Walking can provide a conducive environment for problem-solving. As you walk, you can mull over challenges and come up with creative solutions. The rhythmic motion of walking can help your mind process information and generate ideas.
  
• Increased Dopamine Release: Walking can lead to the release of dopamine, a neurotransmitter associated with reward and motivation. This can make you feel more alert and motivated to engage in mental tasks.
  
• Improved Memory: Some studies suggest that physical activity, including walking, may improve memory and cognitive function, particularly in older adults.

From his position as president Trump did spent months insisting that mail ballots were a Democratic plot and the election would be “rigged.” We all witnessed that.

Without trying to check it’s easy to think that Trump’s henchmen at the state level sought to block mail-in ballots, while his lawyers brought dozens of spurious suits to make it more difficult to vote–an intensification of the GOP’s legacy of suppressive tactics.

I don’t know how true it is that Trump plotted to block a legitimate vote count before the election, but it wouldn’t surprise me.

Of course we all witnessed Trump spending the months following Nov. 3 trying to steal the election he’d lost–with lawsuits and conspiracy theories, pressure on state and local officials, and finally summoning his army of supporters to the Jan. 6 rally that ended in deadly violence at the Capitol.

Of course, it all favored one candidate, and that candidate was Trump himself.

This is what NOS considers rigging an election. I guess he counts this as another Trump failure.

I’m saying it’s propaganda, written by Nancy Pelosi’s biographer, no less. — NOS4A2

According to your understanding of election rigging, the article describes both sides as guilty of it, so how could it be considered propaganda if it doesn’t favor one side or the other?

You’re simply repeating the propaganda, while avoiding their admission. — NOS4A2

So you’re claiming that the portion of the article describing Trump’s efforts to rig the election is false?

I’m arguing the election was rigged. Everything from changing election laws behind the backs of Americans, flooding the system with dark money, threatening riots should they lose, suppressing and controlling information…it’s all there — NOS4A2

“The President [Trump] spent months insisting that mail ballots were a Democratic plot and the election would be “rigged.” His henchmen at the state level sought to block their use, while his lawyers brought dozens of spurious suits to make it more difficult to vote–an intensification of the GOP’s legacy of suppressive tactics. Before the election, Trump plotted to block a legitimate vote count. And he spent the months following Nov. 3 trying to steal the election he’d lost–with lawsuits and conspiracy theories, pressure on state and local officials, and finally summoning his army of supporters to the Jan. 6 rally that ended in deadly violence at the Capitol.”

Your argument seems to include that Trump attempted to rig the election from his position as president and, like so many other failures, he bungled it.

A glittering generality or two and praxis is persuaded. — NOS4A2

Persuaded to what? You’re the one pointing to the article as truth.

There was “a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information”. This is according to their own admission. — NOS4A2

That’s why the participants want the secret history of the 2020 election told, even though it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it. And they believe the public needs to understand the system’s fragility in order to ensure that democracy in America endures.

Also:

Trump and his allies were running their own campaign to spoil the election. The President spent months insisting that mail ballots were a Democratic plot and the election would be “rigged.” His henchmen at the state level sought to block their use, while his lawyers brought dozens of spurious suits to make it more difficult to vote–an intensification of the GOP’s legacy of suppressive tactics. Before the election, Trump plotted to block a legitimate vote count. And he spent the months following Nov. 3 trying to steal the election he’d lost–with lawsuits and conspiracy theories, pressure on state and local officials, and finally summoning his army of supporters to the Jan. 6 rally that ended in deadly violence at the Capitol.

Of course, these efforts all favored one candidate.

Who: They are the modern aristocracy. — Vera Mont

I think their best trick is brainwashing you into believing that people like Jeff Bezos are nobility. They have money and the power and influence that comes with money, that is all.

subliminal messages — Vera Mont

Tinfoil hats effectively block these messages, as I’m sure you’re aware.

And when the vote was challenged, not a single mainstream media outlet wanted the ratings bonanza of turning it into a scandal. — yebiga

It’s been a scandal since day one, what are you talking about?

If you believe that can you explain how they do it? And who are they?

Referring to pure fiction, like Orwellian Newspeak, as though it were something real.

I just finished reading 1984 and according to the story, words that imply individuality, rebellion, or independent thought are systematically eliminated. The word "impact" would not exist at all in Newspeak because it can convey a sense of influence, significance, or change, which could be seen as promoting independent thought or analysis. Words like "impact" would be replaced with more simplified or controlled language that serves the purposes of the Party and reduces the potential for dissent.

The point is to control thought, not to degrade language.

From the last page alone: praxis @universeness @Vera Mont @180 Proof
How would you describe this thread? — Amity

The phrase "hot mess" comes to mind.

Is it only a 'chat' or is there more to it? — Amity

I'd say there's more to it than mere blather.

Has it touched on philosophy? — Amity

Not that I've noticed but I haven't read all of it.

How valuable have the exchanges been? — Amity

Generally good though there are some odd ideas being bounced around.

What ideas/posts have made you think? — Amity

This:

Moral, is a matter of cause and effect. When the consequences are good it is moral. If the consequences are bad it is immoral. — Athena

How would this understanding apply to something like abortion? I think that for any normal person abortion 'feels' wrong, so one consequence of it is a bad feeling. That indicates that it's immoral, according to the cause & effect view. On the other hand, studies indicate that legalizing abortion reduces crime/poverty, a good consequence.

Things become less clear when it comes to personal rights, authority, and tradition. The values that shape our personal and social identities often disagree on the consequences of abortion.

Would it be out of place in the main area? — Amity

It was in place there for months, if I'm not mistaken. In any case, the topic seems to have only three major contributors and moving it to the lounge section didn't seem to bother them at all.

time to make a break from Japanese folks — javi2541997

I’m in the middle of 1Q84. It's quite a long book, almost as long as War & Peace. Consistently good though, like every other Murakami book that I've read, which so far includes The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle, Kafka on the Shore, Killing Commendatore, and What I Talk about When I Talk about Running.

I was only a little disappointed with Kafka on the Shore because it seemed almost geared towards an adolescent audience.

Looking forward to his new book coming out in English.

Religions shape cultures and that is not matter but is conceptual. Our concepts have power. That power can lead to us sacrificing human hearts to a god, or giving charity to people in need. It is as we make it. — Athena

No, significantly it is what religious leaders make it. Religious followers can only follow.

Cicero said our failure to do well was a matter of ignorance because we would do right if we knew the right thing to do. That requires an education that is about good citizenship and good moral judgment and education for technology does not do that. I repeat there is more to life than matter. — Athena

The purpose of religion is to bind groups with a shared narrative, values, etc., not to teach ethics. In fact, religion limits moral development.

There is more to life than antiquated concepts and beliefs.

Are you willing to now throw your hands up in jaded despair, and declare, We are all f*****, we don't deserve to exist, we have failed to be a net positive in this universe and we can NEVER achieve better. — universeness

I didn't say any of that. Accepting that we're animals and unable to control ourselves isn't giving up. Stoicism is realizing that we have all but no control and doing what we can with the little control that we do have.

Speaking of socialism, this guy was in the news the other day for blatantly saying the quiet part out loud...


I guess people like this just want to be kings and fuck everyone else?

Unfortunately, I think that for the best idea to work it requires an enlightened society, and even then the prospects are dubious. Many current trends seem to be anti-enlightenment.

There’s always room for better, and maybe even inevitably better. No one knows if inevitably better is good enough to at least be sustainable though.

You forgot to mention left wing gangsters.

Matter constantly changes but the leaves do so much faster than rocks and neither the leaf nor a stone has the power of moving. So exactly how do you understand the energy of which you speak? — Athena

Both leaf and stone are spinning on the surface of a giant sphere at a thousand miles per hour. They don't fly off of the earth because its mass is so great that it pulls them towards it. The earth is spinning around a star. The solar system is spinning in a galaxy. The galaxy is expanding with the universe... Going the other way, there's a bunch of atomic and quantum movement too, so I'm told.

Trump was determined to be liable of sexual assault by a jury of his peers. Trump had the best lawyers that money could buy, it should be noted. His lawyers would not have allowed biased jurors. Those jurors were convinced that he was responsible.

Is rape not considered immoral in China?

I'm merely saying that… — Hailey

You were trying to rationalize rape, and doing so very poorly. Do you dislike women?

I don't know whether he is a rapist or not. But surely your past and present presidents were capable of other terrible things if not worse than rape. — Hailey

Assuming that past presidents were rapists or worse in order to justify Trump’s crimes is what we call rationalizing in the US. Below is Julia Galif with some helpful tips on spotting and dealing with rationalizing. Hopefully your government will allow you to learn about it.

Complete show trial. — NOS4A2

A Trump supporter would characterize any trial that involved Trump as a show.

“Not only has the Trump Foundation shut down for its misconduct, but the president has been forced to pay $2 million for misusing charitable funds for his own political gain. Charities are not a means to an end, which is why these damages speak to the president’s abuse of power and represent a victory for not-for-profits that follow the law. Funds have finally gone where they deserve — to eight credible charities. My office will continue to fight for accountability because no one is above the law — not a businessman, not a candidate for office, and not even the president of the United States.”

If this was a show trial why did Trump make 19 admissions? An innocent man doesn't admit guilt. His abuses were not merely verbal.

It was a sham trial with a sham judge, long past the statutes of limitation, lacking any hard evidence, and in a hostile jurisdiction. — NOS4A2

Again, the point is that Jean Carroll didn't come up "empty-handed". She was awarded five million bucks because a jury was convinced that Trump sexually assaulted her.

In any case, if Trump had the poor judgment to choose lawyers that bungled jury selection and the rest, it doesn't inspire confidence.

Being found responsible for sexual assault isn't being guilty of sexual assault? Okay, whatever.

The point is that Jean Carroll didn't come up "empty-handed". She was awarded five million bucks because a jury was convinced that Trump sexually assaulted her.

Note that Trump could afford the best lawyers, not that he ever had the good judgement to pick the best people.

@Hailey Do your countrymen find rapists offputting at all?

Liability isn’t guilt. — NOS4A2

What do you mean?

A jury found him liable or responsible for sexual assault.

One can spend days looking through indictments, criticisms, and books for any wrongdoing that isn’t verbal and come up empty-handed. — NOS4A2

A jury found Trump liable for rape. You know that sexual assault isn't verbal, right?

@Hailey
It's true what NOS says about America, that if you say the correct words and repeat the proper platitudes and don't rape women, try to overturn an election, and break other laws, you won't be prosecuted. No other president in American history sexually assaulted women (that we know of) or tried to overturn an election like Trump did so no other president was prosecuted.

no Chinese would think Biden is a communist. — Hailey

Then they must recognize what a blatant lier Trump is. That’s good. Trump has his supporters here convinced that Biden is a communist. That’s millions of people or at least 30% of the population. Granted we Americans aren’t the brightest bunch.

Again though, it’s odd that your government favors such anti-socialist rhetoric.

No one in China thinks this way. — Hailey

No one in China thinks that socialism or communism is good?

Is there anything else you'd like to know.. — Hailey

You didn't answer my question about why the Chinese government would favor Trump. If anything it seems like they would favor Biden because Biden is supposed to be more socialist. In fact, Trump is constantly claiming that Biden is a communist, and that communism is a VERY VERY bad thing.

The BBC is widely considered an unbiased news source. Here is a BBC article that doesn't show Trump in the best light: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-66505804

What happens when you click on the link? Is it blocked somehow?

You're probably right. Perhaps I should not comment so much on Trump since I have only very limited knowledge of him, unlike most of you. — Hailey

Just out of curiosity, how does the Chinese government selectively block internet access to information that puts Trump in a bad light? And any thoughts on why they do that?