It is used as a term of condemnation without understanding what it actually is. — Fooloso4

Yeah, like "liberal". So effective has the "right" been in spitting that term out like a curse that even liberals started to run from it, searching for alternatives like "progressive". Before the propaganda machine got after it, socialism was as American as apple pie. Check out history back in the 19th and early 20th centuries. That's what I hate about the left. They always cede ground until it's time to get the war on, then they go out and win it, but at what cost?

If I call someone "stupid" the right will not have a problem with that. The left will try to come up with some other term, even if it fits. The right also tries to steal Old Glory. And, by god, some on the left cede that fight too, which the right then cites as proof of their point! Jeeze!

Meanwhile, anyone who went to school (and paid attention) knows full well that every single solitary one of our founding fathers was dyed-in-the-wool liberal.

Well, check that. I guess anyone who went to school (and paid attention) knows full well that "liberal" is a position, not a person. So there you have it. Even I have taken to screwing terms because the stupid people have made their definitions the norm.

I wonder if that's how languages develop over time?

I think it might actually be a particle that we can't see because it goes away too fast and gets here too soon.

You are bouncing around within the parameters. I guess that's a good thing, since some folks wouldn't even acknowledge them, or keep their eye on the ball. But, now that you see them, and find the answer obvious, are we to let the difficulties I already stipulated to, and which you outline in your final paragraph, stop us from the effort? Has anyone ever tried? (Honest question, I don't know). But it seems to me that if all the resources spent the living were spent on the dead, we might quicker arrive at that point where there are not any more dead.

Whether it's a political decision, or a court in response to some living convict's defense pointing to all the innocent dead, it might kill the death penalty.

I'd be happy if I knew Amnesty.org or some other outfit had at least tossed it on the table at their monthly strategy meeting. However, because "we" (?) never hear how the state F'd up, I'm guessing it hasn't been tried. Or are the anti-death penalty organizations agreeing with the state that the system works? Or have they crunched the numbers and decided resources are better spent on the living? (I'd like to see those meeting minutes.)

Or if they do, it's only for a very short duration. — Manuel

:up: There's that Darwin thing. If you lock up in the face of an oncoming tornado, you might get removed from the gene pool. On the other hand, all of us running interference for those who might otherwise get weeded out, will actually add diversity to the pool, and when that one disease comes along, those just might be the genes that save us. Who'd a thunk it? Those traditionally viewed as the weakest might inherit the Earth. Lucky bastids!

If you feel appalled by someone's hand getting chopped off for having done the same thing to another person, you should be equally, if not more, disturbed by executions for the crime of murder. — TheMadFool

Some of us aren't that appalled by it, if it's proved out to our personal, subjective, self-righteous satisfaction. But that never happens so I'm against it. I'm too fallible to want to live with the possibility, so why bother? I've often said, if I was governor and the last hope for a convict, I might be willing to pull the trigger myself but I damn sure would never let an executioner do the job for me. If I don't have what it takes to stare them in the eye when I kill them, then it won't be done on my watch.

That's a breath of fresh air. So many folks like to double down.

If it turns out to be a Deep State Q plan to get us lined out with social passports, opening the door to gun control, I would hope I have the integrity to say I was wrong. On the other hand, I don't really know what the hell is going on. I threw my lot in for the brand and I'm riding for it. So far it seems like a fair call.

If we're going by the cockroach example, I wouldn't want them around my house whether I saw them or not. I just wouldn't want any cockroaches near my place of dwelling ever. — BitconnectCarlos

Yeah, people in hell want ice water. It ain't about want. Like I said, they are going to be with us whether we like it or not.

I'm happy going hunting if by hunting we mean doxxing - revealing the neighbor's beliefs to an employer or other members of the community. I'd imagine if the scenario described in the OP were to exist it would be like a min-Cold war in the community where there is clear conflict and hatred, but none of it being open hostility. — BitconnectCarlos

Yes, cancel culture (aka consequences, aka ostracization, aka doxxing) are all viable forms of social engineering, better than the simmering pot, and more likely to stave off an explosion. That is keeping them under the fridge. The OP asked what to do with them and I believe that is how it done.

:100:

In the modern world, the ancient form of justice, an eye for an eye is viewed as barbaric and, more to the point, a miscarriage of justice and yet, capital punishment, which is just that - an eye for an eye - has many strong supporters. — TheMadFool

Different arguments have been made support of punishment generally: Specific and General Deterrence, Incapacitation, Rehabilitation, Retribution (eye for an eye), and Restitution. The death penalty is not applicable to some of those, obviously, but the others still provide a reed to lean on for some folks. In the end, though, I think they could all be satisfied through life without parole.

It is not so much about abstract concepts. — BigThoughtDropper

My concepts are not abstract. They are very, very real. Very real.

I understand as a career lawyer you might be protective of the institution you are a part of and that is where you and I probably diverge - — BigThoughtDropper

You don't understand anything if you think I'm a career lawyer. I haven't practiced law for over 20 years. Nor am I protective of it. See thread called "A Law is a Law is a Law."

I think Western common law has become an elitist sham that is molded by the upper echelons of society and excludes ordinary people. It is a system that works, but only insofar as it will not upset its fundamental tenats that belong in the 19th century. — BigThoughtDropper

We might actually agree on that, that has nothing to do with the question at hand.

Although social security is popular the GOP is still opposed: — Fooloso4

As some wag once said, "They want the issue, not the solution."

The issue is more important because without it, they have no importance. They are running out of issues, so they make them up. Like a war on Christmas.

But make no mistake: The system is working just fine. It's just fine for some and not for others.

But as you say that’s the course of right-left politics. — NOS4A2

Yes, and one must be careful about picking the worst of the other side as a representative of it. Those who detest the idea of welfare will often drag out the worst as an example of what can and does happen. But reasonable people and policy makers should not base their decisions on what we used to call in the Marine Corps the 10%. If we want to devote time and resources to dealing with them, we can, but we should not let that stand in the way of helping the 90%.

I wish I could find it (it was stated much better than I can) a tweet on social media where a lady made a good point about how you actually get more out of people, and don't discourage hard work, when you treat them with respect and dignity.

People don't like being compared to horses, but I can find some use in it. If you have a remuda stocked with rough-broke ponies and the gentle trained, some of the more experienced riders will wrangle the trained up horses. To the extent your brand tries to break the spirit of, and bring a horse to the rope in a rough fashion, you have a systemic issue in that outfit. That doesn't take anything away from the rider, who gets stuck trying to do a job with such horses. And it surely doesn't take anything away from the horse, except his spirit and his voluntary willingness, even eagerness to work with you. Gentle training takes more time and money but it can make for a better horse.

Cockroaches will always exist. So long as they stay under the fridge and only come out at night, we might tolerate them. But when they are brave and getting braver, we break out the poison and start stomping on heads.

I'm a white male that looks like your classic "conservative." So I'm used to all the feelers that are put out, you know, to test and see if I'm "one of the guys." I try to nip it in the bud, and most of the stupid people are smart enough to take a hint, scurrying back into the darkness when the light comes on. But, just as they may "take notes" about me, so do I about them.

The trick is, when is it time to go hunting? Society protects the stupid people too. And, of course, some folks need help with their infestation. We had a Civil War and a World War over that. I'd hate to see that happen again. How far do I go in making sure it does not? Hmmm? The eternal question. First the came for . . .

Social security was not the bait, it was however denounced by its detractors as socialism and communism. — Fooloso4

:100: I am hard-pressed to think of a single, solitary creation of man, currently embraced, and loved by the conservative mind, which was not, at it's genesis, zealously fought against and hated by their processors in interest. They like to pretend they created it, but it was brought to them, over their kicking and screaming, tightly wadded panties, by the liberals of the day. That is the course of humanity: liberals dragging conservatives into the future and progress. I suppose the resistance is a good thing. But, it can make the slog very exhausting. It's like dragging an insolent child through vegetables.

Well, that sounds a bit too idealistic to me. It seems to overlook the agendas of subversive groups and foreign powers using local proxies to destabilize governments. Plus, the process of fragmentation may have already gone too far or is proceeding at too high a speed for idealistic countermeasures to actually work. — Apollodorus

The Founding Fathers were "a bit too idealistic" too. But they didn't overlook the agendas of subversive groups or foreign powers using local proxies to destabilize the government. I think the process of fragmentation has not gone to far. It's just that the dominant paradigm doesn't like it. I don't think they need to get the hell out of the way, but they could quit being so two-valued. In fact, their dualistic thinking is more likely to create the oppositional push-back they dream of in their slippery slope arguments. Case in point: the Sanders and AOCs of the world are just a natural response to the right's failure to listen to capitalists like Warren. Please don't dissect the particulars on that: it was merely an example of how dualistic thinking is the source of it's own chagrin.

The idealistic countermeasure would call for a little self-reflection, instead of all the stupid finger-pointing and boogey men.

I can hold two seemingly contradictory ideas in my head at the same time without whining or exploding. — T Clark

:100:

Then perhaps the solution is to revert to a more traditional political culture and form of governance, one that prevents the growing fragmentation of society along political/ethnic/gender/religious lines which is what seems to be happening at the moment. — Apollodorus

Or, we could always remember the higher ideals and aspirations of the traditional political culture, and try to live up to them. Maybe, also, stepping back and realizing that maybe the fragmentation has started inside, with our own fragmentation and refusal to allow those "others" in. Maybe a recognition that "we" are no longer a majority. Maybe leading by example (the city on the hill, the thousand points of light, etc.) instead of realpolitik.

How do you share power fairly? — Apollodorus

Well, life is not fair. So what we do, in pursuit of self-interest, is we try a little bit of socialism, a little bit of capitalism, a little federal democracy, lots of guns, but mostly, education. Lots and lots of education. And not in *what* to think, but *how* to think. Oh, and trust and the maintenance of credibility by individuals and institutions.

Sure. However, politics is about power which is a limited commodity. You can only acquire power for yourself by taking it from someone else and the more power you have the more you restrict others' access to power. This is why liberalism starts with fighting for freedoms for some groups and ends up suppressing others. — Apollodorus

It's still not an either or proposition. Not all power has to be taken. Just some.

Up vs down. No nuance required. A freaking border collie can do it. — frank

Right vs wrong. I get it. And there is something to be said for the friction, and maybe even the impending fire, but those who get to sit around it and cook aren't burning up in it.

How do you define "two-valued orientation"? — Apollodorus

A two-valued orientation would be saying that socialism is incapable of incorporating aspects of capitalism, and capitalism is incapable of incorporating aspects of socialism. It's like saying there is only black and white; no grey, no red, no blue . . .

Then there is the knob who thinks that dipping your toe into one results in an inevitable slide to it's logical extreme.

I don't know, it's been working for thousands of years. — frank

Actually, I think it is the wisdom of nuance that keeps things "working." Kind of like natural selection. Cross thread points. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/10752/being-a-man/p5

P.S. How do I grab just a single post from another thread and link it here?

The problem is the two-valued orientation, aka dualistic thinking, aka either/or, aka black/white; and the old fallacy of the slipper slope. And people not being schooled in definitions. And dummies like me sniffing around the cheese in the trap.

Go slow, bite-sized chunks, only 200pp. — 180 Proof

Thanks, will do. It's in my cart and when the wife hits "send" I will have some taffy to chew on.

Yep, that Alpha Male has to sleep at night. It would behoove him to be smart, too.

An enlightened capitalist would call it enlightened self-interest.

I started reading this thread from the beginning. Some posts have not aged well.

Schopenhauer claims that the capacity for reflective thought amplifies our suffering as compared with the other animals. — aldreams

Sounds like a man who has time on his hands. I used to be a Recon Team Leader in the Marines. One day, sitting around the squad bay, a peer said "I'm bored." I said "When life bores you, risk it." If S has time to sit around and reflect, then he could reflect on something besides suffering. Many an animal has time to reflect, but apparently they don't. Well, S, don't. Quit reflecting, or get out there and live. Experience that which you apparently abhor. The cold, the hunger, the wet. Embrace the suck!

So, it's not the "capacity" for reflective thought that amplifies our suffering. It's what we do with our time, or what we perceive in reflection.

Devil's Advocate here.

misusing quantum phenomena outside of fundamental physics — 180 Proof

Sounds like me. :up: I went to Google on "Holographic Universe" and "Books" and I found a bunch. If you were to not care about the possibility that I might be compounding my own stupidity, or if you were to simply trust my ability to dip my toe, is there a book you would cite as the best the opposition currently has to offer? (I like hard copies to curl up with).

my points were never debunked, just because you say it it isn't magically happening. — Alexandros

Then you did not read my posts in this thread, or the debunking eluded you. Here I am, being stupid again. LOL!

John Donne, Meditation 17.
http://www.luminarium.org/sevenlit/donne/meditation17.php — tim wood

Great piece, by the way. Thank you. With suns rising and bells tolling I'm seeing Earnest H, but only by the titles to his books. I have them on me reading list, but I think Donne might be more interesting.

ou are wise stopping because i proved it legally and biologically — Alexandros

You would have been wise to read what I already said in debunking your understanding of law and biology. I stopped because the balance of your post had been previously debunked. The wise choice, would be for me to stop explaining that which has already been explained but ignored, with no new distinctions with a relevant difference. So now let me pretend to be wise.

The king's interest in his subjects, — tim wood

That has been addressed in the argument regarding mother vs baby. The king may have an interest in future generations, but my thread of yarn was simply an effort to speculate on what that interest might be, considering the women is standing right there in front of him. Subjects, or subjects to be? That is the question. I think we answer that by saying "To be, or not to be, that is a question for the mother. The king can go F himself and see if he can make a subject on his own.

integrity of woman's body applies only at life risks. — Alexandros

No, it does not. Integrity applies at threat of unlawful touching (assault) and unlawful touching (battery). She gets to decide whether any touching is unlawful or not. She can also revoke permission at any time. So, if conception occurs, whether she consented to it or not, she can revoke consent at any time prior to birth.

The axiom is simple, you cannot kill another human life. That's criminal. — Alexandros

No, it's not. It's homicide. Homicide is not murder until we say it is.

The balance of you post has been dealt with so I'll stop dissecting it here.

Personally, I think art is the only worthwhile contribution of human beings to existence, from any outside, objective perception (assuming there is one). All else we do is BS for ourselves. A better way to say this might be: If after we are long gone, an alien intelligence visits Earth and pokes around, they are going to think art was about it. They won't be impressed with anything else. Hopefully they will be able to hear our music.

Art is no luxury. — Manuel

I agree it is no luxury. It is a necessity. But I do think it comes with leisure. When folks had a full belly in a warm cave on a cold winter day, they could only screw so much.

Start where you want. I answered you the best I can. — MondoR

I will. Thanks for trying.

So, when did the rock become conscious? — T Clark

It always was and always will be.

What would it remember? — T Clark

Well, since I'm not a rock, it's hard for me to know. Probably a lot less than what it already forgot. But maybe nothing. Some folks have lost their memory and they're still conscious. Maybe their memory is written in stone.

Was it conscious all the time, first as magma, then as lava, then as igneous rock, then as individual particles, then as sedimentary rock, then as broken stone? — T Clark

I suspect it was.

Of what use is there in calling the rock conscious? — T Clark

It get's people like you asking questions. But I think it's the height of arrogance for humans to think that everything has to have a "use." Thus, let me stipulate, for the sake of argument, that it has no use for any who don't want to perceive it. Some might think that if we don't know it, it must not exist. Okay.

You certainly have changed the meaning of the word entirely. — T Clark

Think of that whole bat thread, about the ability to know what it is to be something else. Now think of those creatures who have a life cycle of, say, 24 hours. How do they perceive us? Well, however they perceive us, it is, by huge orders of magnitude, so much closer to us than we are to rocks, if we are to use the time scale of a rock. But I think you missed my point: Where All is perceiving itself through the unique angle of T Clark, and where T Clark just happens to think he's conscious, so too, All can perceive a perspective of itself through the rock and, just as All imbued you with what you call consciousness, All can imbue the rock with a consciousness that T Clark cannot perceive.

You can start somewhere, and if you are curious enough about three subject, you keep searching, and not just in books. — MondoR

Why are you worried about where I start? Look, apparently this is something you are still playing with. That's cool. I did a Google search and came up with some hits. I assume you have an issue with those sources and would hate to see a neophyte like me get mislead by some authors who put pen to paper. Thus, you decided to not cite them. There is absolutely no reason why you should have faith in my ability to read a book and not be snookered.

Whatever it is, doesn't mean we can't kill it, legally, biologically, philosophically, morally, or ethically if we want.

All we have to do is place the integrity of a women's body, and her control over it, above any life which happens to reside within her.

I have to respect your life until you place me in reasonable fear of imminent and serious bodily harm, in which case I can defend myself, and if you get killed in the process, tough. We could even lower that standard, if we want, to where my fear need not be reasonable, as long as I had fear. Or even less, not imminent. Or even less, not serious bodily harm, but any harm. We can round boys up and send them off to war. We can kill murders. We can do all kinds of things and still be civil, legal, logical, moral, philosophical, ethical, etc. Being "innocent" as a baby can be trumped by considerations of the woman. My house, my rules. Her body, her rules.

The only leg pro-life people have to stand on is the sanctity of human life. Which, of course, is not so sacred when it comes down to it. We take it all the time on the back end; we can take it on the front end too. So they then try to qualify it based upon innocence. But again, innocence can be trumped by concern for the control over ones own carcass. We can tell her coulda-shoulda-woulda, but it's her body and there is no compelling state interest in keeping babies alive, beyond the creation of new tax payers. And that can be addressed at the border.