The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity. — W.B.Yeats

Or as some other wag put it: Those who know are full of doubt, while those who don't know are full of confidence. It seems to me, most experts are full of doubt and they say get the shot. Others, like Tucker Carlson, who don't know shit, are full of confidence.

:100:

I don't know how interesting this question is, but does it matter if someone is right for the wrong reasons, or wrong for the right reasons? I'm not sure if it matters at the end of the day. I don't even know if I want to go down that road.

But I can say this: I vaxed for the same reasons that many conservatives honor those who sign up for military service, not really questioning the war or their commanders. Just stepping up because their country asked them to. It's interesting that many of those conservatives are now war protesters, spitting on the front line troops, and attacking their POTUS and government in a time of war.

This leads me to believe it's more political than anything. Sure, there might be a few people out there who have thought this through and decided not to get on board. But, in my opinion, they are the minority.

I just hope that, next time the MIC and their fully-owned-and-operated bitches in the Legislature and White House decide to spin up a war with some foreign nation or non-state actor, they check their hatred of the hippies and anti-war protesters. Maybe check the yellow ribbons (which many of the troops hated) and quit wrapping themselves in the flag, claiming to be patriotic, and stop with all the "love it or leave it" "you're un-American" fucking bull shit.

If I'm too fucking stupid to see the conspiracy behind big pharma, the vax and whatever, then they are most definitely too fucking stupid to call themselves Americans to the exclusion of others who don't agree with them. But is right. The reasons and the numbers are on the side of this war.

P.S. When it comes to conspiracy theories, what about Occam's Razor? Maybe the government wants you to vax because they are trying to help. After all, they've been asking nicely for fucking ever. I would have rolled out the dystopian nightmare for you "rebels" a long time ago. Quit your crying.

You have first failed to define what a swan is. Without first doing so, then it's not that "all swans are white" rather, it is "swans are white." Thus, any similar bird that is not white is not a swan. This forces us to first define "swan." Is a swan defined by it's genetic make up, inter-breedability, color, etc.? It is clear that not all swans are white if "swan" is defined by a character other than white. But if white is the defining character, then NOTE: THIS IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION BUT RATHER OF PURE IRREFUTABLE LOGIC. A black bird is not a swan.

Thus, you must step back in time, BEFORE your thee step process, and first find agreement on fundamental premises. Only then may you go forward with disagreement.

I thank the air that is held to the Earth by the gravity. I will try to spend more time appreciating each lung-full. Good stuff.

I feel certain that mother nature will. — Michael Zwingli

:100: :up: Yes, as they say on Wall Street, there will be a correction. :grin:

As you've stated it, it's private yet belongs to the nation state, which isn't clear. — Hanover

It's very clear in the U.S. The sovereign is, well, sovereign. But in it's sovereignty it has recognized the right to property being held by private individuals.

Except that's a myth. https://daily.jstor.org/yes-americans-owned-land-before-columbus/ — Hanover

Except it's not a myth. As is typical of such articles, they lead with an enticing headline speaking to a universal truth, and then cover their ass shortly thereafter with an "it's complicated." LOL! The only "myth" that "all" Native Americans were of one-mind on anything is a myth created by those with a guilty conscience about stealing what was not theirs under their own understanding of private property. It's easier to take what, ostensibly, no one claims ownership of.

Regardless, the "complicated" part was over 500 separate nations, with some, albeit few, that did not conceive of land as something to own. Many a hot spring or mineral spring was deemed a place of peace for all. Other areas, before the horse assisted with inroads, were vast, empty of humans, hard to penetrate and deemed to be not owned by anyone, but they would be used. Conflict often resulted over competition for resources without a claim to ownership thereof. When there was plenty, the conflict was cultural (war parties and what not) and not over alleged ownership.

Were there a lot of nations that understood and used the concept of property? Yes. But to lead with a universal and call the inverse a myth, in the face of complexity is just as disingenuous as the alleged myth itself. Let's give some kid a talking point and don't expect him to read the caveats in the article. We'll bolster it with those tribes that support our contention of ownership and ignore those that don't, covering with an "it's complicated." Yeah, that's the ticket!

Side bar: I fucking hate articles like that because they seem to spin themselves as a correction of some liberal ideal that did not exist. Kind of like racists alleging that anti-racists don't know about blacks selling blacks in Africa, or blacks owning blacks in the U.S. It's all a BS strawman designed to give talking points to a choir that is out to "own the libs" with our outstanding research and critical thinking skill. :lol: And the irony is, it wasn't the libs that spun up the idea of non-ownership or "one with nature" in the first place.

Sorry, end rant.

You are an open book with no cover and no pages. Thus, it's not really open, but it is. — Derrick Huestis

That is true. And not. Likewise, you are an open book with no cover and no pages. Thus, it's not really open, but it is. And not. You are learning, my Padawan. :razz:

:100: Yup.

Hell, even before the state, there was the tribe and, while some of them might have found the idea of land ownership preposterous, they too would kill you in a heart beat if competition for resources on that land became an issue.

The rise of the state is the direct result of the rise of population. Where the individualist demands his God-given right to breed like a rabbit, he himself has sewn the seeds of his own destruction. It's too late put that horse back in the barn.

I had to steer away from "everything" because I did not like the "thing" part of it. Like wise with the word "nothing." Thus, I chose the word "All" which covers both. I also chose words like "cover" or "accounts for" because I did not like the word "includes." The latter denotes something or nothing that is within something or nothing else. And I am not talking about things, or everything or nothing. I'm talking about All. All can be whatever, then some and, of course, not, and everything and nothing in between. It is, quite simply, and complexly, All.

Sorry. I shouldn't have eaten so much.

"Hmmm... been fearsome confused for a month or two, but I ain't never been lost!" Henry Frapp

Perhaps another way of putting it, you have enough understanding to create problems, but not enough to solve the problems you've created. — Derrick Huestis

Your first post wanted me to clarify that my position is that grass not grass (and is, too, but you get my point, even if you don't agree with it). But I don't think you were contesting that so much as you were trying to explain that while I might be able to play, I don't have anything of value to offer. I glean as much from you second post, to which I respond here. This post is clearer.

So, I will argue, by saying this (which I have said before, but not to you): I am no physicist and I am not a professional philosopher. However, when I see them struggling, I wonder if they might not want to go back to the drawing board and challenge the very premises they originally agreed to before launching themselves into what they may find a fun, challenging and lucrative endeavor, with plenty of insights and "AHA" moments, but where they nevertheless make their frustrations and chagrins public for simpletons like me to read and consider.

So, while I might not know enough to solve a problem that I did not create but merely pointed out for smarter people than me, I expect them to solve it before concerning myself with their hand-wringing and lost sleep. It reminds me of the guy who beats his horse and expects better performance from the horse.

But that was all really just me arguing. I have, in fact, solved the problem but I don't think they want to hear it. The answer is "A". "A" is all, which necessarily accounts for the absence of itself. A = A and -A. Some people have gone down rabbit holes of a limited number of multi-verses (2, 10, etc.) while other talk of infinite universes and alternative me that are identical, or have one atom reversed, missing, displaced, re-colored or configured and infinite times and blah, blah blah. It's ALL true. And not. Other people call it God. In fact, that brings up another example: people talk about paradox. Well, I'm perfectly comfortable with paradox. God cannot be God if God doesn't want to be God. After all, it's God, right? What kind of pussy-ass God could not be not God if he felt like it? That ain't no God.

Anyway, animals have taught me I am right about this. And not. That does not render me immobile and unable to function because my open mind had my brains fall out. Quite the contrary. I look upon everything with awe and except it for what it is and is not.

I'm rambling. Dinner is ready.

Now you are challenging me to learn. :grin: I don't think I'm up for that. But if the burden of proof lies upon the proponent, and the proponent says that X cannot = -X, then he should have to prove it. If he says that it is self-evident, then he should submit a lessor proof. Any greater proof should have lesser proofs that are not anecdotal. If he says that "you can't prove a negative" then he has stipulated that logic is based upon that which cannot be proven. So, we all just agree that X=X and go on our merry way.

But I was taught that, in order to argue, the participants must first agree on a premise before going forward in disagreement. If one doesn't want to go forward, then don't accept the premise. That is all I've done. I refuse to accept any one's premise and place the burden of proof upon them, where it belongs. I won't accept anecdote and nothing is self-evident.

I've been told I'm full of shit and that may be true, but maybe the modernizing you refer to could dumb it down enough for me. We'll probably never know unless I follow links and proceed down what could be a rabbit hole.

On the other hand, I'm comfortable with X being X and -X at the same time. Many people cannot handle that, and I think that is fine. But I think they will continue to struggle with the divorce between the general and quantum, and the fact that every time they find an answer, a thousand new questions arise, and they seem to be getting further from the truth, rather than closer to it. But I do enjoy watching them struggle. It's like life itself. Cool.

No arguing about your subjectivity. The real question is, why come on a philosophy forum that deliberates over the truth and say there is no truth assertively as though you have it? — Derrick Huestis

And therein lies the dilemma I referenced before. My having said there is no truth is automatically transmogrified by you into an understanding that it is my position that there is no truth, when in fact there is.

Side bar: A philosophy forum is the best place to discuss the issue of whether or not logic has a weakness that relies upon a gentlemen's agreement for it's worth.

The state is operated by men. It was also built by men. So you are subordinate to men. But these men don’t act like men, like your neighbor might. They act like officials. So you are subordinate to a lower form of man, the official. The statist is little more than a stooge or thrall in that sense. — NOS4A2

The state is operated by men that the community elected. I am subordinate to my community and no individual fuck-stick that might use his might to subordinate me. The elected men ARE officials. They are officially elected. So I am subordinate to a higher form of man: the official who has subordinated himself to the community and who is (or, but for the creep of the individualist into ownership of government) subordinate to the community. The individualist is little more than a stooge who think he could defend himself from Alpha males who would make him their bitch.

In a free world we’d build roads together in common enterprise. — NOS4A2

First, there is not such thing as a free world. That is a utopian fantasy of a child. And no, you would not build roads together in a common enterprise across my land because I wouldn't let you. Oh, wait, I wouldn't have a choice because that aforementioned man I referred to would do what the state does and run rough shod right over me. And I wouldn't even have a vote or fair market value.

So your property is declared eminent domain, the state’s property, and a road goes through your property without your say in the matter. — NOS4A2

Who declares eminent domain? DOH! The state. You need the state to protect you from people like you who would take your land without your permission or without fair market value under the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment.

the implication being that only man in his statist form can flatten ground and lay asphalt. — NOS4A2

By the way, that is true. You can't flatten my ground or lay asphalt on it without my permission, and the permission of countless other private property owners from here to there. Some things just aren't for sale, and you'd end up with roads that had to go around so much that was not for sale, or come to a dead end, that it would not be worth building.

someone always brings up roads and bridges and how a state is necessary for infrastructure, the implication being that only man in his statist form can flatten ground and lay asphalt. — NOS4A2

I only go there for argument. In the final analysis, I love the state as a weapon I wield against those who would oppress me in it's absence. I need only subordinate myself to it to wield it. Could it come back to bite me? Yes, but I'd rather be bitten it than to subordinate myself to a man. And of all men, I find the greatest threat in those who want to be free of the state. They are, irretrievably, the villain.

We potentially agree more than you think, — Derrick Huesits

That is, of course, true. Because, by my reasoning (or what some would call a lack thereof) everything is true. And not.

It is simply a continuation, and the logic isn't so "flawed" as you presume. — Derrick Huesits

I think the mistake in your reasoning is that you nail down X to what you think it is. Try thinking of it as what you don't think it is. In other words, substitute X for whatever would defeat your argument. There you have it.

The problem I face is that others perceive that whenever I answer yes or no, I must hold the inverse of my conclusion. Thus, if someone asks me if I think God exists and I say yes, then I am automatically precluded from thinking that God does not exist. That is simply not true. Everything and nothing is happening and not happening, everywhere and nowhere, all at once, now, never and forever.

In order to make any sense of anything, you must first stipulate to agree on a premise. Or, as has been argued elsewhere on this board, there must be a "gentlemen's agreement." True as that might be, the burden of proof is upon the proponent and it is a violation of the agreement to argue "self-evidence" or "can't prove a negative." So we just pretend that X is something that helps us make our argument and not the other guy's.

The old saying goes, every cowboy fancies himself a philosopher. To a certain extent, it's true. If you spend enough time alone, outdoors, inside your own head, shit happens. A man don't need a pack train of book 'larnin' to go philosophizen'. I does help, though, if others can understand what you are getting at.

My wife had a female student who enlisted and was deployed to Afghanistan. One night she was knocked unconscious and raped, most likely by an American soldier. Suffers permanent brain damage. — praxis

I know of a similar case but Dubai, U.S. Air Force, fellow airman, no brain damage.

Everyone should go watch the movie Platoon. It is evidence of the fragility of democracy when Sgt. Elias is killed, leaving it to an airstrike on our own positions to create an opening for Chris to shoot Barnes. I’m just naïve enough to think our ranks are full of Sgt. Elias types. And that they all recognize the Barnes’ of the world as the Blue Falcons that they are. Perhaps I am like Big Harold in that regard.

If our society has failed to generate more Elias' than Barnes, we are fucked and don't deserve to survive.

It's like I've heard it expressed in the past, if you die quietly in your sleep it's a gift from the gods. — boagie

I want to die peacefully in my sleep, like my grandfather did. Not screaming in terror like his passengers.

Tip 'o the hat to some forgotten wag.

Anyway, there will be time enough for that, later. Right now, everything, including death, is all about the living. Grief, eulogies, funerals, head stones and all the "You will never be forgotten" lies are, in the end, all about the living. All of it. Even this thread. You can't escape life, even in death.

On the other hand, some other wag once wrote something to the effect that you only die when the last memory of you dies. Maybe then you can RIP.

Infinity isn't a thing, but a perpetuation of a thing or state of being, a property. In your argument, you treat it as a thing which it is not. — Derrick Huesits

Doesn't matter how I treat it, as a thing or or state of being or a property. The argument stands. So long as you use the word "it" like you did, the argument stands. It also stands for any not-it that you can conjure up with your best thinking.

Infinity cannot be itself if it fails to account for the absence of itself. Such a failure would render it finite. Same with eternity.

Quite simply, X = X and -X, whether logic likes it or not. And not.

Unfortunately, I think that the (again, naturally selected for) "libido dominari" (or "will to power", if you prefer) which I think of as the root cause of the impetus to all types of "arkhe" (Ancient Greek "rule, authority, command, dominion"), goes much deeper and is much more profound and influential than the sex drive. — Michael Zwingli

Yeah, you are probably right. On the other hand, I bet it would remove several contenders from the mix. :grin:

As for others: it’s good to be questioning and challenging dogma and the status quo. But only if you put in the work— not simply because you’ve spent a few minutes on YouTube. — Xtrix

:100:

https://ourplnt.com/i-did-my-own-research/

:100:

:cheer:

I've speculated that the wide-spread, highly accurate and realistic VR combined with sex dolls/robots (ala West World) would be a net positive to humanity and the Earth. For those who think it would result in a lack of social intercourse, civics, empathy and the rise of a dystopia, you might have a point. Those are minor bugs to be worked out.

Once sex is taken off the table, though, (i.e. men and women are "spent") I think they are more rational, empathetic, civic minded, kind and caring. Further, I don't think it would adversely impact the good things that could be the result of aggression. Other, lesser drives would still exist and aggression would still exist, but it would be tempered somewhat. I think men would start to view women more as fellow travelers in life, humans, animals, worthy of dignity and respect, as opposed to some*thing* to be had. Women, likewise, might better access some of their non-maternal energies. Playing fields would be leveled.

Hell, there might actually be a greater inclination toward real interhuman intimacy and loving sex.

I find the idea of the "comfort girls" for Japanese troops to be abhorrent. But I understand the thinking of the Generals and leaders. On the one hand, you want to maintain aggression in your fighters, but you also want to keep them happy during down time, with something to look forward to. But all the "red in tooth and claw" boardroom bullshit just creates a culture of greed, gain, screwing people over to create the best plumage to intimidate other males and get the girl. It's a contributor to our intra-specific political and other division, and the rape of the Earth.

I think many women just want to feel safe. They might feel like prey in a world of predators. Men likewise don't want to worry about submission to Beta status, or bound to maintaining Alfa status. They predator/prey relation is there, too.

If everyone had their sexual fantasies fulfilled on a regular basis, on demand, they might better get back to the business of progress.

I know some religious folks would zealously object. But they can be marginalized. After all, we all know they would be jumping in, feet first, if only behind closed doors. You be able to spot them, with that afterglow on their faces as they futilely tried to work up a rage. At least they wouldn't be molesting children and whatnot. Yet another benefit, I'd say. Rape would drop too, I'd imagine.

I don't necessarily believe anything I just said. I'm just throwing it out there in the spirit of the forum.

I thank the animals who have taught me that it's okay to thank them, instead of or in addition to their creator(s).

Something sticks it's head out from behind all that I am thankful for. And I want to thank gravity. I don't know what it is, but I'm certainly grateful. Thank you for keeping it all together.

What are the benefits and the problems with patriarchy and with matriarchy? — Athena

I don't know, but as for me, it's time to turn over the reigns. There are some fucked up women (Palin, Taylor-Green, Boebert, et al) but they are outnumbered and don't have what it takes to deal with smart and wise women.

I feel the same way about the younger generation. And minorities. Woman, the 20-30-40 somethings, and the black and brown crowd can't possibly be any worse than the suit and tie crowd.

Fork that bronc and ride, ladies, kids, the oppressed.

Please rise above vindictive vengeance, though. Not all of us were out to fuck you.

:100: I can understand attorney fees, but court fees and costs should be within the sole province of the courts. Maybe they let the legislature tell them how to administer themselves.

I'm thankful for space. I love moving around in it.

No I don't think that's the case. The defendant can't obtain reimbursement for the defendant's costs and fees if the defendant manages to prevail, though. — Ciceronianus

I don't remember that much, but I thought there were some things the courts found to be solely within their wheelhouse, and the legislative and executive branch lacked jurisdiction to encroach into those areas. You would think that costs and fees would be in there. Or the court could could order some relief in equity. Maybe not. I knew the courts were emasculated but I didn't know how much.

Abortions won't pose a risk to or threaten private citizens who seek to enforce this Texas law, however. — Ciceronianus

Agreed. That is a distinction with a relevant difference. Also, those other laws usually required a failure of the Administration to step up and enforce, first.

As to vigilantes, I could be wrong but I recollect some reading that the originals, in CA, shortly after the gold rush started in the 1850s, were first spun up to counter wife beating. The men in the community would gather and have a little wall-to-wall counseling with the offender. If that didn't work, well, let's just say that "lynching" doesn't necessarily have to be a southern or a racist thing. It has a long history out west, for white people. A neck tie party. Their mission expanded beyond wife beating of course, but I guess that is where it started.

If true, then I find it interesting that the men of old used to use vigilante justice to protect women's rights. Some Texas men have fallen from that regard.

Oh well, as someone opined on the Afghanistan thread, some women like it. I noticed Texas put all their female legislators out front for the signing. Kind of like Republicans always sprinkling women and blacks and Hispanics in their photo ops. Are there a few legit? Sure. But we all know signaling when we see it.

A tweet I read said:

"When the penalty for aborting after rape is more sever than the penalty for rape, then you know it's a war on women." mohamad safa.

And another:

"End the filibuster. Expand the Supreme Court. Break the glass and pull the alarm because this is a fucking emergency." Andy Richtor

I think I agree, and it's not just the Texas deal. I think I will emphasize: It's not just the Texas deal. I think it's time. To hell with the potential future scenario when it's used against us. The one way to guarantee that future is to not do it now. They give no quarter. If we do it, they may never sit again. I'd be willing to risk it. I know, it's not up to me and it's not just my ass on the line. But it's my opinion.

If I recollect correct, in logical argument, both parties run backwards together as far as necessary to find a premise upon which they agree. Then and only then do they go forward with disagreement. Otherwise, they're just two ships passing in the night, or risk being so. I think the same analysis would apply to the definition of terms.

Almost my whole point. Repugnant and repulsive as they may be to modern sensibility, they are not altogether stupid. — tim wood

Yeah, keep those women defenseless, reliant upon men. You know, like the Texas legislature.

One might say Taliban, but at least the Taliban aspire to some principle, however repugnant. — tim wood

Yeah, but the Taliban doesn't let women go strapped.

On the other hand, we do have citizen suit provisions in many environmental statutes. While I don't think they allow a bounty, per se, they do allow for attorney's fees and costs. Texas may be saying "Two can play at that game." Maybe we should add bounties to federal law for all the environmental rape that goes on in Texas and elsewhere. We could take the bounty money out of the Federal largess that we bestow upon Texas. Like Biden could pay the teacher salaries docked by no-mask governors and use money that would otherwise go to the state. Sounds Trumpian, but again, two can play at that game.

If they want to have a race to the bottom, I suppose we could teach them a lesson.

:100: :up:

Institutions and individuals have been forfeiting their credibility for a long time now. The Supremes lost it on Bush v. Gore, as far as I'm concerned. I fantasize about the day the court holds me in contempt, and then allows me to say "But your honors, there is no need to hold me there. I am in contempt of you and I'm in good company. You've earned it!" I'll write you from my jail cell if they let me have a 'puter. :grin:

Anyway, we might have to spin up an underground railroad for the womens. Fuck Texas, and fuck the Supreme Court.