Capital punishment fails to meet criteria 1 and 2 but it "seems" to fit 3. Only ''seems'' because prevention can be better achieved by educating society on morality and the values of peace, friendship, life, etc.

Studies have shown that capital punishment is no significant deterrent for murder.

There's no difference between the government taxing us to pay private companies to insure for health care and it taxing us to to pay private companies to build roads.
— Hanover

Very few individuals, if any, can build a network of roads on their own. The overwhelming majority of individuals can purchase an insurance policy on their own.

You're way off, not only can most citizens not afford health insurance for themselves and their children at their present rates or without a huge deductible, many are either denied insurance for present conditions or are given rates way out of affordability for those conditions.

Exploiting the latter in morally and constitutionally questionable ways may be good politics if your goal is to maintain or increase your power by appealing to certain voters, but it is bad politics if your goal is to enact well-vetted reforms that will endure.

Providing Single Payer health care so all our citizens, including all our children, have sufficient health care isn't exploiting anything; it's being a civilized First World country that doesn't let its citizens die because of lack of money. It's a far better money spent than the trillions we spend on missiles, bombs, drones, and other weapons every year.

I showed very well the racist things they said and why they were so. If you didn't see them, you either read the thread poorly or share their racist views and are racist, yourself.

Either way, I'm not impressed and have no more reason to read any more of your posts on this thread.

Thorongil and Augustino said racist things and stood by them. So, I correctly called them "racists." Since you have a problem with that, I'm glad you don't want to be like me; I certainly don't want to be like you.

And no I never said I prefer periods of great racial discrimination over periods of no racial discrimination.

Of course you said that. You said it in the exchange below. So, you should be asking "He is retard?" about yourself...:)

The fact you ask that is very sad. Of course it was worse. At least 1/2 had the money for school and ended up doing child labor on to terrible labor the rest of their life, and the facilities for Blacks were decidedly inferior to those for Whites. Your nostalgia for horror is disturbing.
— Thanatos Sand

>:O At least, back 200 years ago, a doctor who finished medical school didn't have to slave away for 10s of years before he could become a full-time doctor ;)

The rest of your post was incoherent nonsense. So, since you've degraded into mere babbling, you and I are done. I won't be reading anymore of your posts. I suggest you go get help for that racism of yours; it can be helped.

Of course you're in favor of it, since in your quote directly above you clearly express your preference for a period when child education was rampant and there was terrible racial discrimination being used in making education worse for Black children than for White children. Your own words make that clear.
— Thanatos Sand

You're repeating the same false accusations here.

No, I made the same accurate claim. You're making the same erroneous deflections here.

Now, you're pretending you think things are actually better when we spend money on education.
— Thanatos Sand

No, I'm not. Reading comprehension is not your strong suit it seems.

Yes, you are, and I showed how you were. My reading comprehension is excellent, yours is clearly awful.

You expressed your horrid support of periods of racism and child labor over our present period of spending billions on labor.
— Thanatos Sand

Once again, repeating this doesn't make it so! If you're just trolling, then I hope you find something better to do with your life. If not, then I hope you seek psychological help, as you've displayed nothing but pathological, ungrounded antipathy toward me and, by the looks of it, other people on this forum too.

Once again, repeating didn't make it so, it's truth made it so, so the only one trolling and (greatly) needing psychological help is you. As the only one who has shown pathological, ungrounded antipathy is you in your meltdown above.

I won't be reading any more of your post so you can go get that help, and probably some meds, too.

No, it's more like all racists like you today want to keep being racist, but get your feelings hurt when people actually call them racist. How very boring.
— Thanatos Sand
No, I'm just finding it incredibly funny that you call me a racist :)

Then you must think it's funny when I call a tree a "tree" since you've made it clear you're a racist.

You know those horrible conditions existed back then for Blacks and you still think it was better back then. That makes you a racist.
— Thanatos Sand
So how does that make me a racist? Can you please explain? If you like vanilla ice-cream because of its taste are you a racist because it is white? :s And like all racists today, of course you don't want to admit that you really like it because it's white!

The fact you have to ask that proves you're an ignoramus. Only racists would prefer times when Blacks suffered great racial discrimination over periods when they don't. That's syllogisitically self-explanatory. If you don't get that, I'll get you a bigger ignoramus hat...:)

And you clearly showed you're in favor of child labor and racial discrimination because you said you preferred a period when those things were much more prevalent than our current period.
— Thanatos Sand

Wow. This is so ridiculous that I'm not entirely sure you're being serious! First, no, I'm not in favor of child labor or racial discrimination. For you to assume that I am is uncharitable in the extreme.

Thanatos Sand So, back when we didn't pump billions into education, didn't have a department of education, etc, US students were receiving an inferior education to those now?

Of course you're in favor of it, since in your quote directly above you clearly express your preference for a period when child education was rampant and there was terrible racial discrimination being used in making education worse for Black children than for White children. Your own words make that clear.

So, the only one being ridiculous is you.

Second, no, I never said I "preferred" the past, I simply challenged you to prove that US students were not receiving an inferior education than they are today, which you have still failed to do

This is disingenuous and dishonest. The whole challenge was on the premise of your claim education was better in periods when we didn't spend money, which was when child labor and racism was rampant. Now, you're pretending you think things are actually better when we spend money on education. So, your preference for periods of child labor and reference still stands, unless you want to admit your original arguments were wrong, and we know you won't do that.

And I'm not deflecting anything. You expressed your horrid support of periods of racism and child labor over our present period of spending billions on labor. So, I addressed it, and you've been stalling us by lying and deflecting from your shameful preference for periods of child labor and racism.

Don't mind Augustino. I showed he was an ignoramus and a racist. So, he's only trying to woefully save face...:)

Of course it was worse. At least 1/2 had the money for school and ended up doing child labor on to terrible labor the rest of their life, and the facilities for Blacks were decidedly inferior to those for Whites.
— Thanatos Sand

You're trying to make marginal cases the normative ones. Sorry, these are red herrings. I'd like an answer to my question without offensive insinuations that I'm in favor of child labor or racial discrimination.

No, I'm doing no such thing and you haven't shown I have. So, the only red herring is yours. And you clearly showed you're in favor of child labor and racial discrimination because you said you preferred a period when those things were much more prevalent than our current period. Nice.

Watch out. It's only a matter of time before Noble Dust will stalk and troll you like the weirdo he is.

This is a huge red herring and non sequitur. I specifically told you I didn't mean that it was better back then for the reason that white people had access to more resources than black people

No, it's neither and you haven't shown it's either. It doesn't matter that you didn't think it was better back then for that reason. You know those horrible conditions existed back then for Blacks and you still think it was better back then. That makes you a racist.

Rather I said it was better because those who did have access to resources (whether they were white or black - skin color is irrelevant to me because I'm not a racist) could actually do something meaningful with them. So no, I don't think I'm a racist at all.

See, my last quote above which shows why that's irrelevant. And it shows why you're a racist, regardless of what you think. Many KKK members say they aren't racist's, too. Funny.

But it seems that like all progressives today, you are obsessed about racism, sexism, etc. :-} How boring.

No, it's more like all racists like you today want to keep being racist, but get your feelings hurt when people actually call them racist. How very boring.

Thanatos Sand Please quit writing in bold, it certainly doesn't make what you say any truer.

I write in bold in long posts to delineate my writing from my interlocutors. I have no idea why that would bother you. Anyway, my post needed no more Truth.

Because doctors weren't professionals with the same requirements as now. But the fact you think it was better then when a black child had decidedly sufficient facilities to a white child and had a much worse chance of getting into med school because of discriminatory admissions show you're an unrepentant racist.

Congratulations...:)
— Thanatos Sand

I never claimed it was better in that sense. But living in a world where we all have such possibilities but they are rendered meaningless (because we have to spend 10s of years slaving away before we can properly do what we went to university for) is worse, yes - for all of us, even for the black person. It's worse than not having such a possibility in the first place

Sorry, the fact you said ">:O At least, back 200 years ago, a doctor who finished medical school didn't have to slave away for 10s of years before he could become a full-time doctor ;)" was a clear suggestion things were better back then, since you can't deny those terrible conditions for Blacks back them. I don't have time for games, racist.

And, since you do admit things were better back then when they were worse for Blacks, and you don't back up your "possibilities rendered meaningless" claim at all, you just further affirm your racism.

No, much rather we have set up bullshit requirements in order to create a bureaucracy which supports the old doctors who are steps away from senility in holding on to their positions while the young have to slave away for them, effectively doing their own work

No, much rather we caught up with the science of the time that we were woefully behind and science and medicine has advanced greatly requiring more and greater education for doctors. Apparently you still want brain surgeons to be using pliers.

Doctors are those who apply procedures, not those who use their brain to treat the individual conditions that each person has.

No, doctors have to use their brains to diagnose and implement those procedures most successfully. I really do worry about your health. You clearly are seeing the wrong doctors...:)

Bureaucracy has crippled us - the West is crippled by bureaucracy everywhere. Bureaucracy makes life very difficult for the up and coming, for the new, for the young. It is a game that they cannot win. And it's rigged. Because if things were fair, our hospitals wouldn't be run by 80 year old men who can barely speak two words anymore. Our politicians wouldn't be old dinosaurs who are a step away from the grave, and who struggle to even lead themselves. Our world has made an Alexander impossible.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the racism we were discussing. Considering you're a racist, I'm not surprised you want to deflect so.

Look at the Renaissance - that great era of human history in which culture flourished, genius was common, some of history's greatest artistic achievements came into being, science advanced, theology developed, trade blossomed! Apart from technological advances, which indeed are something we didn't have back then, we're absolutely not better than we used to be.

Even more deflection, and, by the way, medicine was a nightmare then and they burned more witches than in the Medieval times.

Because doctors weren't professionals with the same requirements as now. But the fact you think it was better then when a black child had decidedly sufficient facilities to a white child and had a much worse chance of getting into med school because of discriminatory admissions show you're an unrepentant racist.

Congratulations...:)

The fact you ask that is very sad. Of course it was worse. At least 1/2 had the money for school and ended up doing child labor on to terrible labor the rest of their life, and the facilities for Blacks were decidedly inferior to those for Whites. Your nostalgia for horror is disturbing.

Nah, the one needing to do that is clearly you. Increasing a deficient amount is not repeating the same unsuccessful act.

Then you face the empirical problem of how the ever increasing billions spent on education hasn't translated into students being better educated. — Thorongil

No, you face the empirical problem of how the--"ever increasing" is a nebulous phrase--billions spent on education has translated into some success, but clearly hasn't been enough, so they need to spend more.

I got ya.

Well, I think Heidegger would actually agree with you to a certain extent, while Hegel obviously wouldn't.

Except wouldn't recovery from being thrown and achieving Dasein be contingent on reconciliation with one's own time, as well as one's history and culture transcending it? That existential aspect would preclude an essentialist Truth

↪Erik That's one reason why I never had that much appreciation for the historical philosophers thinking here primarily of Hegel and Heidegger. They are archivers in many regards, not innovators in my opinion.

As I noted above, they weren't archivists at all, and you haven't shown them to be. As I noted above, they were engagers, interpreters, and synthesizers like all philosophers.

You clearly haven't read Heidegger, and probably not Hegel. But feel free to actually back up your erroneous claim any time.

My thoughts exactly.

Oh yes, some are great archivers, no doubt about it. But an archiver isn't remarked by originality and genius

Sorry, Heidegger wasn't an archiver, a mere collector of information. He engaged and interpreted great thinkers, and integrated those engagements and interpretations into his own original ideas, which is a mark of his originality and genius That is what most great thinkers do, since few come up with ideas solely their own.

Anyone who truly studies philosophy knows that.

And your erroneously calling Heidegger an "archiver" shows you never read his work.

That's all quite relevant. But at the same time let's not kid ourselves. Heidegger ain't the kind of philosopher who will make you take out your sword and follow him >:O - the way Nietzsche or Kierkegaard could.

Let's not kid ourselves. Your view of Heidegger is just your own unbiased one you fail to support in any way. And great philosophers do not inspire the taking out of swords and following them. If Kierkegaard knew his readers were doing that, he'd puke.

Heidegger does reveal some useful matters, but he is not, in this regard, life altering.

Of course he has been for many of his readers. Again, you throw out these broad unsupported views and treat them like Truth. That's not very Nietzschean, and you clearly haven't read Heidegger.

I never said they were. You need to go read what I wrote again and retract that.
— Thanatos Sand

The sentence in question is pretty vague, so maybe simplify it? Then feel free to comment on the actual argument that I just made instead of nitpicking on things that I misinterpreted because your language was vague.

Sorry, the sentence in question and my language werent' vague and you haven't shown it is. You just completely misrepresented what I said. So, it's on you to read better. And asking you to not misrepresent what I said is not nitpicking; it's asking you to actually use your English skills if you have any.. But since you're fine with misrepresenting me, we're done and I won't be reading anymore of your posts.

Cheers.

And furthermore, those physical symptoms of mental illnesses are simply the machinery by which our subjective conscious experience of those states of mind are set into motion, and we only know that through the subjective experience of conscious scientific observation.

No, they are not; they are somatic and mental manifestations of chemical imbalances in the brain.

You're reducing those mental states to biological functions (biological reductionism).

No, I'm not. They are biological functions and biological reductionism is a ridiculous religious term.

This is fallacious because you're doing this through your conscious intellect.

No, it's not because my conscious intellect is a product of my brain and the rest of my body and nothing more.

When we observe the physical mechanisms of our own minds, we are doing just that: observing the mechanisms.

We can't observe the mechanisms of our minds. Only neurologists and their equipment like EKGs can.

You're basically saying: The lasagna is only a product of the oven. No one made the lasagna, and they didn't (not) make it for anyone else to eat.

No, i'm not even close to saying that at all, and you haven't shown I have. What a ridiculous metaphor.

What is Nature, capital N? the poetic device here is confusing.

I just mean the natural world, as in everything.

The physical symptoms in the brain that lead to psychopathy or pedophilia are not the same thing as a crocodile feeding to survive.

I never said they were. You need to go read what I wrote again and retract that.

We have inefficient elementary, secondary and higher education systems to reform.

It's funny how people think you can't improve a military without throwing immense amounts of money at it, but they think you can improve an education system without using taxpayers money, as if you could do it with just good will.

Getting talented people to teach and/or administrate in public schools costs money. If you pay poor, you get poor. The same goes with facilities, computers, books and other programs helping students and our society as a result.

And tax money going to public education is much better spent than on bombs, missiles and drones.

For humans to be the "shame" of the animal kingdom requires consciousness; other animals don't consider us the shame of the animal kingdom because they don't consider anything. Whether or not animals actually feel the emotion of shame is not related to a human (conscious) argument about whether or not we as humans are "shameful" animals.

I got you, but I would say we are not the "shame" of the animal kingdom because Nature knows no "shame" and every "shameful" thing we do is as much a part of our biology--very often in deficient forms like psychopaths or pedophiles--as tearing animals to shreds is to crocodiles. And our feelings of shame are usually more emotional than parts of our consciousness, which is itself a conceptual term for bio-physiological dynamics.

You continue to completely miss my point. Shame, along with all emotions, only exists as a concept within consciousness.

No, emotions are also physical reactions and expressions of unconscious experience and feeling, particularly with the more irrational ones like hate, love, and anger. So, they are products of the brain/body and, as you mentioned, another product of brain/body--consciousness.

I would say this: "Business, we need to reduce gang violence in the community. Everybody, including you, will benefit. Can you help?"

We pay taxes for this service; It's called the police force. It's anti-business and anti-citizen to expect them to pay anything further. Also, putting more money into education and raising the minimum wage, making jobs more attractive than being in gangs, will help.

There are other ways to meet people's needs besides government spending. Recruiting volunteers is an example.

And since we pay taxes, government spending should be expected. Volunteers cannot do good police work and would be likely to get themselves killed or to kill someone else. Again improving the quality and funding of education, including free college, will be a huge help to lessening gang membership.

I haven't denied that and have nowhere claimed that Trump either brought about the post-truth condition, that it was synchronous with his becoming president or that it has even reached its culmination. People just seem to me to have become more and more concerned with comfort and less and less with the truth of political ideals. As I said, this is an interpretation and cannot be rigorously demonstrated to be either right or wrong. If you think it can be demonstrated to be wrong then lay out your demonstration.

Of course it can be demonstrated to be wrong and I've already done so in my previous posts. Go re-read them if you wish. You certainly haven't countered them yet.. And you haven't come close to demonstrating it's right. Sorry.

Really, your approach to discussion is appalling! Why do you suddenly feel the need to resort to bolding and an aggressive and insulting attitude? Perhaps you need to see an anger management therapist? :-}

Sorry, all that anger is all yours, as well as the need for an anger management therapist, and you just proved it there with your angry personal attack. I, on the other hand, haven't made one yet. And that also shows the only bolding, aggressive and insulting attitude is yours...:)

And seeing how I made all my arguments without resorting to angry attacks, and you failed to make yours and made angry attacks, the appalling approach to discussion is also yours.

Cheers. I won't be reading any more of your hostile, irrational posts.

The only one making insults was you. And you clearly can't make an opposing argument, despite your blather. So, you've only been wasting my time, and you can move along.

Thanks for helping to prove me right.
— Thanatos Sand

You're welcome, Thanatos. You have no idea of how happy it makes me to be able to cast light on your greatness!

So, you still can't make an opposing argument. Good to know.

People were certainly injured in protests in the sixties]

Some were. Most weren't. Some protestors are willing to die now. And back then there was a war and Jim crow laws to fight against. So, no, people aren't bowing because of Trump. And again, this is irrelevant since we're talking about whether they believe his lies, not whether they're willing to die in a protest against him. You're very slow in grasping that, or you know you're wrong so you keep pushing the same irrelevant issue.

And protestors, for example asylum seekers and people living under oppressive regimes, early Protestants and early Christians among countless others who have stood for religious and ideological faiths, for what they understood to be 'the truth', have been prepared to die for their causes.

And none of this was any different under Obama then it is now. So, you're again bringing up irrelevant issues that don't show we're in a "Post-Truth" world at all.

Such causes always consist in "speaking truth to power". Today comfort has become more important than truth.

That's your completely biased and unsupported view that just further undermines your erroneous position. Comfort was more important than Truth to most Americans before Trump, as well. And DAPL and BLM protestors are still speaking truth to power with Trump in office. A lot of Americans lay down to Obama when he unconstitutionally monitored our phones, too. Americans just bent over and took it. They also bent over and took it when Obama refused to prosecute the Banks after O8. So, you're wrong about people speaking truth to power before Trump and you're wrong about a "Post-truth" world.

Sure, this is an interpretation that you might not find congenial to your mindset, but it's pointless arguing about it, since there is no objective fact in this matter that could be used to demonstrate the truth of one interpretation or the other.

No, it's a matter of your incorrect interpretation only being congenial to your mindset with no evidence to support it. You know you have a bad argument about "Post-Truth" so you try to support it with such a fallacious interpretation.

since there is no objective fact in this matter that could be used to demonstrate the truth of one interpretation or the other. It's basic hermeneutics.

No, there's always objective facts involved--it's not just hermeneutics--and Trump and the protestors to which you referred to are some of them. Just because objective facts show you to be wrong doesnt' mean you can erroneously try to wave away their existence.

I know it because there is nothing else it could come from.
— Thanatos Sand

That is the dogma that is the question this thread is exploring. The fact that you have swallowed it to the point you can't even see what it is anymore, is what I'm calling into question.

No, the only dogma is your correction of it, since you clearly can't offer an argument for an alternative to what I said. Thanks for helping to prove me right.

You know this - how? That is simply question-begging, i.e. 'assuming what needs to be proven'.

No, your erroneously calling it question-begging is question-begging. I know it because there is nothing else it could come from. Feel free to name something; you haven't yet.

Yes, but the point is that what constitutes protest exists on a spectrum from genuine full-blooded commitment (to the truth,say) and attenuated commitment that is so watered-down that it could hardly be said to be commitment at all. For me, that is just what the idea of 'post-truth' captures.

Sorry, you're still wrong as even most of the protests in the 60's didn't involve people willing to give up their lives. So, protest today is not a watered down-version. And you're even more wrong since if it were, that would be an issue of "Post-effort," not "post-truth," since none of the protesters are believing Trump's lies.

Also I am not convinced that the people who "protest" against Trump are objecting so much to his lies, as they are to the whole idea of a man such as himself, perceived to be lacking in any moral integrity at all, being in such an important position.

What you're convinced of is irrelevant since the protestors clearly arent' buying his lies, so their protests flies in the face of a notion of a "Post-Truth" world, showing that concept is ridiculous.

While it's true that spiders can make webs, birds can fly, and so on, the rationality that characterises humans is not something of the same order as those attributes. So the thing that makes humans different, is of a different order to the biological.

Yes it is, as any type of thinking humans do comes from our bodies and genetic programming, as does birds' ability to fly. Secondly, rationality is just our Western cultural concept we apply to our thinking; it isn't an exact description of our thinking process, not to mention the fact people are usually more irrational than they are rational.

Yes, but what you call "protest", I think of as 'faux-protest'. How much do you think the peolple who protest would really be willing to put on the line to get rid of Trump?]

You can mistakenly call it what you like. But they're still protesting and clearly aren't buying into his lies, so whether they're willing to put it on the line--as few protesters do--is irrelevant to their not buying into his lies. So, my point still stands.

Would they give their lives? Their wealth and status? Their comfort? Their lifestyles?

Again, not only are these questions pointless since few protestors of anything are willing to give those things up, but we're not discussing the extent of their commitment. We were discussing whether they bought into Trump's lies or not. They clearly don't.