You ask me for solutions, but I cannot fix something that is broken. I can only distance myself from it. — Tzeentch

Probably should have lead with that, but thanks. Sounds like Street. A list of alternatives that are not alternatives.

At least you gave a tip 'o the hat what the U.S. used to be. The aspirational stuff in the organic documents is still there, as a template for the people, if they ever decide to take their country back from the Plutocracy.

But if it's irreparably broke, and everyone just distances themselves from it, we'll just have rinse-repeat with no progress. I say give the kids a chance. After all, that arc keep bending, albeit slowly.

Not looking for a fight this morning. Just wonder what all the critics have in mind.

It's all based on the same lack of awareness of the subjectiveness of one's views, which, if understood, would automatically disqualify those views as being suitable to be imposed on others. — Tzeentch

Okay, assuming that is correct, I don't think being aware of the subjectiveness of ones will to power to automatically qualifies one's views as being suitable to be imposed on others. To paraphrase Genghis Khan, the greatest happiness is scatter your enemies and drive them before you. To see his cities reduced to ashes and his loved ones shrouded in tears. And to gather to your bosom his wives and daughters.

So, what's the alternative? No government at all? How would that be enforced when confronting a will to power?

It would seem a pretense, like socialism, would be better than anything else we've come up with. Unless we could make a religion out of worshipping the Earth. Even then, there are going to be issues.

So, one more time, what is the alternative?

:up:

Even rape? — Pinprick

It might not be a bad thing to rape a rapist. Especially if it got him to quit raping.

It’s a regretful quote. “Socialism” fits better than “progress”. — NOS4A2

Speaking of progress, as I remember it, the lilly-livered left ran from the honorable term "liberal" when Newt, Limbaugh, and crew spit it out like a dirty word. Rather than punch those fucks in the face and wrap themselves in "liberal" like a Republican in a flag, they scurried around and scrounged up the word "progressive" as their new self-identifier. Whatever. Only a fascist would consider "socialism" better than "progress." "Liberal is the proper word. Indeed, all the good progress that man has ever made was brought to us by liberals, over the kicking and screaming of contemporary conservatives. Then, when conservatives realized they were wrong, and grew to love the new thing, they now hold on tight to it when liberals bring on the best new thing. Rinse, repeat.

Don't forget socialism.

"[Republican Senator Robert] Taft explained that the great issue in this campaign is “creeping socialism.” Now that is the patented trademark of the special interest lobbies. Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.

Socialism is what they called public power.

Socialism is what they called social security.

Socialism is what they called farm price supports.

Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.

Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.

Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.

When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan “Down With Socialism” on the banner of his “great crusade,” that is really not what he means at all.

What he really means is, “Down with Progress — down with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal,” and “down with Harry Truman’s fair Deal.” That is what he means."

HTruman

Spelling Nazi! True to form. Thanks. :razz:

Oh ok, so just what you think are in the best interests of society as a whole, then. — NOS4A2

Well, that's easy. In the U.S., just don't give personhood to money, follow the state and federal election and voting procedures, and the end result will be the interests of society as a whole.

This guy hasn't a clue about fascism. He thought neoliberalism was "liberal." Better just to satirize and laugh. — Xtrix

He reminds me of the Limbaughs who point out that "Nazi" has "socialist" in the name, so they must be socialist. You know, like the PDRK must be the people's, and democratic, and a republic. Because they say so. Mussolini said something, ergo it must be true. :lol:

In the interests of society as a whole. It’s the best you can do and the best you have done, isn’t that so? — NOS4A2

Not the fascist state you keep citing for your authority. You know, the one with the "social exigencies." Heil!

“Freedom therefore is due to the citizen and to classes on condition that they exercise it in the interest of society as a whole and within the limits set by social exigencies, liberty being, like any other individual right, a concession of the state.”

- The Doctrine of Fascism — NOS4A2

Emphasis added.

The common good = Hitler. Got it. Another air-tight argument. — Xtrix

He likes citing fascists. "Very fine people on both sides."

Yet you aggrandize the state at the expense of your own freedom, just like a fascist would do. Funny stuff. — NOS4A2

Ah, but you are wrong when you say I "aggrandize" the state and do it at the "expense" of my own freedom, just like a fascist would say. :razz: The state is just a simple tool I use to enhance my freedom at your expense.

That’s why you don’t know what fascism is. — NOS4A2

I do know what it is, which is precisely why I don't look to fascists for my cute little one liners. You know, like a fascist would do.

Mussolini loved the New Deal and Keynesianism. Not-so-odd bedfellows, then. — NOS4A2

Yeah, that's why FDR kicked his ass, along with Mussoline's bedfellow, Hitler. :rofl:

I’m not so sure about that. — NOS4A2

I am.

“You want to know what fascism is like? It is like your New Deal!”

- Benito Mussolini — NOS4A2

Yeah, but he was a fascist, so there's that. The original conservative "whataboutism." :rofl:

I don't look to fascists for my read on things.

The best we can do is allow the state to monopolize the “common good”. — NOS4A2

Yep.

I guess it’s not as common or as good as we make it out to be. — NOS4A2

But the best we can do. The best we've ever done.

Beats Squatter Sovereignty and any smaller constructions.

10th, the IS of all possible realities without any delineation between those realities.
It is an infinity of infinities: Everything. — PoeticUniverse

I like that one, so long as it (they) account(s) for the absence of it (them) sel(ves)f. But it also sounds a little bit like universal panentheism, which pretends to account for all gods, with one being the only true God over all, or where the rest are simply alternative interpretations of the one. That gives no credit to each one being God, when they really are. And not.

Restated, without all the god crap, it sounds like the infinity is the one true infinity, while the rest of the infinities are simply alternative interpretations of the one, or worse, they are subordinate to the one real infinity when, in reality, they are each one actual infinities. And not.

And, rather than "Everything", which uses that suffix of "thing", I like All, which accounts for nothing, or the absence of itself. All, simplified as "A."

To extend my rant, I like to imagine myself telling Young Sheldon and the rest, as they stand perplexed before their black board trying to delineate the grand theory of every*thing*( :roll: ):

"The answer is "A." Working backwards we find "All". Working backwards from there we find "A = A and A = -A." Now, you people, smarter than me every one, keep going back to wherever you are now in your calculations and you will have closed the loop and found your grand theory. I have given you the answer. Now figure out the question. That is all. Carry on."

With the assumption that he is a moral agent, and decides to go against the prevailing scientific belief that vaccination works, we have to think about whether admitting such decision within our system makes the system unstable. Well, does it? — Caldwell

Now I agree that that-there is beyond the scope of this thread. I argued it with Frank.

Often we can accommodate such modalities given a small number of occurrence. Often the stability of a system is tied to the size of modalities -- or divergent actions. I believe we have in place a device that could measure it, and once a number of unacceptable divergence is reached, we are also equipped to deal with it. But should we really wait until it rocks the boat? — Caldwell

It's like the state's different reasons for punishment: it depends on what your goals are. I like to see people be forced to take personal responsibility for their own actions. But I also like third parties to see a magnanimous state, so long as that doesn't encourage bad behavior. And a soft-broke horse is not broken, whereas a hard-broke horse is. Regardless, we should consider those who play by the rules for positive treatment at the front of the line.

Bringing this back to animals: See horse. They should be at the front of the line with positive treatment. Morality didn't factor into their decision-making (Notwithstanding that occasional Molly who holds a grudge. Best not to quick-her whilst giving a pedicure).

I defended one of five people (the ring leader) charged with conspiracy. The rest plead out but my guy walked. I found conspiracy to be what they called it: "The prosecutor's darling." The Soviets were masters. I did a lot of research on it and found that a zealous defense could really trip up the state. While one might argue that the criminal charge of conspiracy is different than the type of conspiracy we are talking about here, they aren't too far apart. When you start peeling the onion, you often find there is no nut inside. I forgot what all I argued, but it was not worth the time and resources for the state to continue the charge.

The point here, I think, is that the willing suspension of disbelief is a good and fun thing for conspiracy theories. But after a relaxing respite from the real world, you don't walk out of the theater thinking that it was a thought-provoking movie.

We have other movies for that. We should try to learn to tell the difference. Peel the onion. Look for the nut. Be willing to walk away when you don't have anything.

In that case, no isn't against our moral system to treat animals as innocent, and with respect. All moral agents are presumed to have the ability to think about their actions, including the bread thief. Changing our behavior towards the animals does not make our moral system unstable. We could have a more detailed analysis if you'd like. But acknowledging that animals have a will to live, just like us, doesn't go against our moral system. — Caldwell

My chain saw keeps quitting on me. Anyway, yeah, there is no argument on that. In fact, that is what I said: "Any lens is only our own. The relationship [predator/prey] is amoral, not immoral. And by that assessment, from our perspective, it must be moral."
Emphasis added. Same with the guy steeling bread and the guy seeking help when he failed to get vaxxed. Just as there is a place where the law can only operate after the fact, so too morality.

Maybe we should start a new thread on this as we are hijacking Shawn's animal thread. What do you think? I will respond at the new thread. — Caldwell

I'm thinking that I was sticking to his question here:

This might sound strange, but how is a person to overtly state that animals are innocent bystanders of our desires for the goods produced from their cultivation? — Shawn

Where they *live* in the *now* without all the moral hand-wringing of men, that rings of innocence to me. I was merely trying to bring it home in a way that humans might understand. But if I failed, that's okay. I have to go buck some wood for winter. Peace.

Rather, in this situation, the subjective action of an individual -- stealing a loaf of bread -- needs to be examined if it fits in the moral codes of the community of moral agents. — Caldwell

If there is a "need" to examine, then who has that alleged need? Certainly not the guy steeling the bread. That was my point. Only those with a full belly have the luxury of sitting around ruminating their cud on such things. If they think the guy had other options, or made bad choices resulting in his choice, etc. that is still irrelevant to him. If they are really worried about it, they can ask themselves if they, personally, presented him with another option, and if so, why didn't he take it? But that's still irrelevant to the now.

A person is offered a free vaccine. He doesn't take it. He get's sick and starts dying. He runs to the hospital and begs for help. We can sit around with our couldashouldawoulda all day long. That doesn't influence his actions.

Animals live life now.

St. Michael’s Church, Fort Walton, Kansas. Front pew, right leg. Hollow.

Especially what Sewcraits supposed to have said! (dunno him, but he seems to be damn right!) — Verdi

It may be somewhat disrespectful for me to make fun of such an icon, but whenever I say his name I hear Steve Martin in the back of my head. Same with Plohto.

The article was a synopsis of a long-term satellite experiment on the direction in which cows lay together. No, there were no connections with drink water. This was also asked when I sent it. But why should there be? To dismiss it a priori shows narrow,-mindedness and certainly no scientific attitude. There could be a true link between magnetism and drinking behavior. — Verdi

It would be cool to study bison, or even take the satellites over Africa to look at Cape Buffalo or Wildebeest: animals living in a "relatively" unmolested situation.

Somehow, there is a connection here with conspiracy thinking. Was I considered the conspiricist here? Or were they? Or were they just narrow-minded? Sticking to the dogma, and me attacking it, while not even having the slightest intention to do so. Just had some farmer advice. — Verdi

If you were not married to your hypothesis, then it is not a conspiracy theory. Genuine intellectual curiosity is what distinguishes the two. Once you "know" then you are FOS. That applies to so-called mainstream physics, logic, or anything else. Whether Sewcraits ever said it or not, we are still attracted to the idea of "knowing nothing" for a reason.

Yeah, in other words, dogma composed of confirmation bias (i.e. paranoiac suspicions). — 180 Proof

:100:

Talk to me then, like you mean it. — Caldwell

I don't know how to link. I'm going to try it:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/519768#:~:text=This%20has%20probably,with%20the%20deer.

It kind of worked. Anyway, like I said before, you have to see it. Reading about it is one thing, but actually participating in it is another. When a man steels a loaf of bread to feed his starving child, the concept of morality is a luxury for those with leisure. If they want an alternative choice, they have to provide it. For the man, life has been reduced to living. The goal is to live and to get your offspring to live. I honor that and resolve to do it. That deer had no intent to teach me anything. Intent, like morality, is off the table in the now.

Suicide, like morality, is a leisure time activity.

The predator-prey relationship is more complex than it seems when viewed under the moral lens. I think Nietzsche had similar thoughts as me in this regard. — TheMadFool

Any lens is only our own. The relationship is amoral, not immoral. And by that assessment, from our perspective, it must be moral.

That said I don't endorse the view that goes I'm only torturing/killing you for your own good. — TheMadFool

:100: There is no torturing/killing for "your own good." Torturing is training for the torturer and killing is for food for the killer.

bears the hallmark of creative genius albeit in a twisted, wicked sense. — TheMadFool

That's just us, or our impression of nature when we try to divorce ourselves from it. There is no "wicked." Nor is there any psychopathy.

Off to bed. Night.

The cost - short, painful lives - maybe something cattle, pigs, sheep, chicken, horses, are willing to bear so long as they can pass down their genes. — TheMadFool

Interesting biological angle. Strike the word "willing" and it would be more interesting. The same argument has been made for those humans which would, under natural circumstances, be removed from the gene pool. Whatever their malady, they may possess that one gene that gets us through some as-yet unknown or unforeseen upset. It's a form of intraspecific diversity.

In the end, though, domestic animals have a dependence upon us such that if we ever wipe ourselves out, they probably won't last long in competition with those of the ilk from which they descended. They might make a good meal for them, though.

There could be exceptions, and interbreeding between domestic and wild, but since they have, like us, left off the honing of edges on hard surfaces, the majority won't be worth much to themselves. The jury is still out on us. It's only been a few hundred thousand years. Hardly long enough to have back-slapping party.

The doctrine of human rights rests upon a particularly fundamental philosophical claim: that there exists a rationally identifiable moral order, an order whose legitimacy precedes contingent social and historical conditions and applies to all human beings everywhere and at all times.

I agree with that. Some of those rights are the right to fight, the right to flight and the right to self-defense. It's not simply a human construct. Indeed, much of the common law is steeped in a concept of "natural law", which comes from nature and not simply the mind of man. The fact that man will articulate it for himself is not the flex he thinks it is. Animals don't need the articulation.

They have a will to live. — Caldwell

:100: They taught me what "will to live" means. While I have been depressed at times, I won't pretend to understand deep clinical depression. However, I can't help but think if a suicidal person could witness some of the animal demonstrations of a will to live that I have seen, they would turn away from killing themselves.

But neither did you. That's the hilarious part of this. You started this whole thing telling me I can't possibly understand or know until I go and hunt and until then I'd be irredeemably blind. — Artemis

Let me refresh your memory. You started this with: "The idea that things like respect or grace could possibly matter when killing someone seems pretty far-fetched to me."

That is not an argument and there is no allegation of flaw. Nothing. I explained how I understood your position, based upon how far man has distanced him self from who he is. I told you how to get back to the animal that we are. You could not contest the wisdom of that recommendation without making some silly analogy to serial killers. That's sounds suspiciously as bad as the ADA cannibal thing you found so off-putting. Really, Aremis, why did you make that illogical leap? I know why. Because you cannot fathom the idea that a killer and eater of meat could possibly have respect for the animal he kills, or that his killing it could be in grace with it. Oakie Dokey.

I'm not even pretending to give evidence or arguments. So why you're griping about it ... I really cannot fathom. — Artemis

Precisely because you said "The idea that things like respect or grace could possibly matter when killing someone seems pretty far-fetched to me." If you don't want to engage, and you don't want an interlocutor and you don't want to demonstrate a flaw and if you don't want to state a position, then the answer is simple: Don't.

So yeah, that's my olive branch for today and my exeunt from this thread. — Artemis

Adios.

And I'll add, yes, I'm being lazy and don't really WANT to rehash what has been hashed out ad nauseam on this forum already... — Artemis

Then let it go.

BUT at least I'm not clouding my stance in some pseudo-mystical fiddlydud about becoming one with the deer, but no actually with the hunter of the deer, which is the same as the deer but somehow like... not the same? And if you don't understand, then you're just blind! blind I say! — Artemis

Even worse, you are not offering any evidence of a flaw, much less any support for your side. In fact, I don't even know what your side is. Would you have the lions lay down with the lamb?

I said this thread and others through the eyes of the other side, actually. — Artemis

Yes, and I addressed all that. I'd restate what I JUST said, but the record can speak for itself.

But, hey, your whole "you need arguments" spiel is coming on the heels of your whole "I can't give you arguments, you just need to hunt and see it for yourself" yadda yadda yadda. — Artemis

You were the one alleging flaws in arguments made without showing any flaw. That's on you.

So excuse me, but I think my asking you to just read some past conversations, which are literally just a few clicks away is a lot less out there and "inconvenient" than some suggestion that I should --quite literally-- get blood on my hands. — Artemis

So you didn't read a word I JUST said? I read this thread. I have not seen the flaws you alleged to exist but refuse to point out.

You did do all of that. You enslaved human beings, committed genocide, transferred their wealth to yourself, and used the funds to consolidate your power and spread war. — NOS4A2

I didn't do any of that. But I damn sure benefited from it, as did you and everyone else in the world.

That said, there's a story breaking in Australia about shocking treatment of livestock in the live animal trade, by abbatoirs in Indonesia. I'm standing with the animal rights acitivists in calling for that abhorrent trade to be closed down, it is absolutely heart-wrenching to see animals treated that way, and completely inhumane. But it's not a matter of violation of the animal's rights, it's cruelty on the part of humans. — Wayfarer

:100:

Someone in the past, as I've mentioned and just for example, told me they'd eat disabled people. So yeah, it's tedious. — Artemis

Yeah, I don't know where that came from.

Didn't you JUST say you don't want to look at the archives and don't know anything about what was said there? So much for BTDT.... — Artemis

You said "But I do cordially invite you to read this thread . . . "

BTDT.

I also told you that " If you could maintain interest and look a little deeper, you might find your interlocutors have been on the other side, yet progressed with experience."

i.e. BTDT

And, since I JUST told you I'm not going search through years of the forum to find whatever unknown thread it might be that you are thinking of (the one where someone would eat the disabled? or disagreed with you in argument?) then I figured you'd be smart enough to know that I was not referring that when I said BTDT. After all, it was only a few minutes ago that you were told.

Nah, I already explained why I'm not interested. — Artemis

Because you are not an interlocutor? Someone in the past failed to agree with you?

But I do cordially invite you to read this thread and previous threads not through your own eyes, but through the eyes of a non-omni.... hey, kinda like you told me to inhabit a deer or cougar or something by hunting! Go ahead! It'll be fun! :snicker: — Artemis

BTDT. :smile:

It's a nice metaphor. Sorry but not I would call serious talk here. — Caldwell

That's because you completely ignored me when I said:

But I'm just funnin' you. I know what you mean, and the answer is emphatically no. Animals don't treat other animals with so much disrespect, lack of consideration, lack of mindfulness, lack of conscious deliberation. Rather, they live in the now, and hunt with conscious deliberate mindfulness. — James Riley

and then continued to pursue the funnin' with:

Except that they've been doing that before humans came into existence. Though I should have qualified my statement of will as that of animals, vertebrate, some invertebrate are also considered here. But let's stay close to vertebrate. — Caldwell

You could have kept it on my serious response to your serious post.