Why not multiple kinds of shapes? Why must there be one fundamental building block instead of multiple ones equally fundamental? — Ø implies everything

Because the author of this thread considered the universe as an individual entity of existence, and not a multiple of divided shapes. I partially agree with his argument, because we would have multiple universes otherwise. This would lead us to multiple realities, and there would be chaos. Don't you think?

That's what I understood from the author's argument, sort of.

I'm confused. Perhaps you can explain what you mean? — Amity

Before trying to understand a concept in philosophy, I think about which category the concept should be. Using this 'logic', it helps me to make the 'correct' premises. Something like meaning and concepts can be seen in two different views: epistemology (if it is a form of knowledge) or metaphysics (if it depends on the truth/reality of our knowledge) and more precisely, I would include this exchange in a subcategory: Philosophy of Language or "metalinguistics".

Steven Pinker, in his book 'Words and Rules, The Ingredients of Language', states that grammar - thus, if we can include meaning inside this linguistic category - has two key components: rote learning ("words") and innate rules ("rules"). The fact that I enjoyed reading his book the most is the debate amongst experts on which category the meaning should be: Is it a word or a rule? I agree with him that there must be "rules" behind all the way down. And 'meaning' is included in this category because it helps us to analyse language and vocabulary.

What is the meaning of the usages of "meaning" that unites them? Is there a unitary concept they share? — hypericin

I asked myself the same question a while ago. I did a brief search on Google or Friesian, but it was difficult to find answers because I was wondering if these questions were part of metaphysics or epistemology. Well, it turns out that it is a matter of metaphysics, and specifically speaking, "A Kant-Friesian" approach. I fully recommend you to read this. I guess you will find some answers: Meaning

Basically, the problem of the nature of meaning has been one of the main debates in philosophy. This is why I was wondering how to understand it, because it has both epistemological and metaphysical theories. My only contribution might be the above link, but I will be reading the replies in your thread because there are users who have more knowledge on this matter, and they would dive in (maybe).

September 28th.

Interesting! :up:

Human or AI? — praxis

it’s a coin toss. I’m gonna go with AI — simplyG

I am going to go with human then. Let's see which side it lands.

Your mind is a good one and you share your thoughts generously. Thank you. — Amity

I can only fully appreciate your kindness, Amity. Your mind and thoughts are very comfortable, and you always try to make us feel better with ourselves. I like to see that you are still flowing around TPF - although the literary contest finished a month ago - because you often leave TPF for months... :confused:

The flow seems to come and go. But it is more likely to arise if you already have the practice and experience of regular writing. No matter whether it's perfect - it's vital. A physical and mental necessity. — Amity

Well said, Amity. I have been stuck in my imaginative process. I have been writing some stuff, but I didn't like it at all. This doesn't mean that I erased what I wrote, because it helps me to see what I am missing. I agree with @Vera Mont, flow comes and goes, and sometimes it takes a lot to catch it again.
Yet, I love to write. Whenever I finish a paragraph, although it can be mediocre, I feel good with myself.

Arms and the man; Candida by George Bernard Shaw.

Playwrights, one of the best of this literary genre.

The Russian threat doesn’t consist in attacking Spain out of the blue yesterday. But in wanting to regain its sphere of influence in Easter Europe which then will have an impact on International power balance. — neomac

I agree. Nonetheless, I still don't know why it is dangerous to switch the power balance often. Every powerful and rich nation tends to impose its way of seeing things. The U.S. did it after WWII, and Russia did it as well in the Soviet era. This is the kind of world we live in, some nations need to be under the umbrella of others, depending on the values and principles they have in common. Yet, it is important to highlight one important fact here. You mentioned my country and I promise you that if my nation got attacked by Morocco - for example - nobody would care. Yes, NATO would defend us, but it is just protocol like. If we disappear as a whole tomorrow, nobody would care honestly. But why does Washington care that much about Ukraine? Again, I am sceptic. There is something I can't see and it is hidden. So, there is hypocrisy defending some nations and others don't.

Besides geopolitics is all about security dilemmas, so if one discounts the arguments behind certain choices, it's always "paranoia", INCLUDING Putin's paranoia of NATO encirclement. — neomac

True, but while the security dilemmas of Russia are very well argued, Washington's not. It is not the same as letting Ukraine join NATO, which is close to Russian frontiers, as having some rockets in Cuba. The U.S. created - pretty well - a big international fence with the aim to get their enemies as far as possible. And they accomplished it, because most of the wars have always taken part far away from their frontiers: WWII, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Korea, etc.

So don’t get so excited over nothing. — neomac

Bollocks! That's what the puppet Zelensky should have in mind!

I can’t decide for the Ukrainians which world they want to be part of, nor their motives to do so.
They have chosen the West (and it’s not the first time) and they are ready to pay for it.
It’s on the Westerners to decide what to do about it in the face of the Russian threat against the West too, and declaredly so. — neomac

Are you aware that the so called "Russian threat" is only in Washington's paranoia? If you were from Finland, Poland, Romania, Moldova, Belarus, etc. I would respect your argument. But, it is obvious that Putin is not that stupid to attack NATO members.

Dude, I was referring to the current war. — neomac

No, you didn't: The Americans fought against the British Imperial power in the past...,
1776 is pretty far from our current year, indeed!

It’s on the Westerners to decide what to do about it in the face of the Russian threat against the West too, and declaredly so. — neomac

Your arguments are based on the false premise that in the Western world there are no threats, which, of course, is completely wrong. I think that before giving lessons to the East we should have to look ourselves in the mirror, and act humbly. If you think that a Russian commander is more dangerous for your security than some psychopath with the right to purchase weapons, you are not experiencing reality, and it is clear that you are living under the lies of Western propaganda. I see and experience a lot of threats in daily life which do not come from Russia precisely: Inflation, scarcity, unemployment, insecurity, political instability, etc. But, didn't you pretend to defend that the Western world is awesome?

Because Ukraine is not threatening to the West, it wants to join the West. — neomac

They want to be funded by the Western world, which is different. Because speaking plainly and frankly, they are part of the East world. They no longer want to be funded by Russia for reasons that remain unclear to me.

Yet they largely support the war, as far as I can tell: — neomac

I can't take you seriously if you believe in those statistics.

Nobody has invaded Russia proper. — neomac

Operation Barbarossa was the invasion of the Soviet Union by Nazi Germany and many of its Axis allies, starting on Sunday, 22 June 1941, during the Second World War. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

True, it says so.

But, according to some district courts, such a section is unconstitutional:

“[a]lthough not exhaustive, the Court’s historical survey finds little evidence that § 922(n) — which prohibits those under felony indictment from obtaining a firearm — aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition. As a result, this Court holds that § 922(n) is unconstitutional. The Court said that the “Second Amendment is not a ‘second class right. In addition, the decision casts substantial doubt on whether 18 USC § 922(g) – which prohibits people convicted of felonies from possessing guns or ammo – is still constitutional in light of Bruen.
Bruen held that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government… must affirmatively prove that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms….” https://lisa-legalinfo.com/2022/09/26/district-court-decision-questions-everything-in-18-usc-922-update-for-september-26-2022/

So, let's see what the judges decide regarding this issue, and not some vacuous journalists. :smile:

I don't think Russia would want to be part of the EU or NATO, even though such options have been explored in the past, mainly because it would entail ceding some sovereignty to Brussels (or Washington in the case of NATO). — Tzeentch

Oh, yes! You are right, I completely forgot the unconditional requirements for joining the EU is ceding part of the sovereignty.

But I do have some sympathy for him, and certainly for the Ukrainian people. — Tzeentch

I have sympathy - and most importantly, empathy - with Russian folks too. I think they are in a difficult situation, because being a regular citizen on the side which everyone hates is messy. I wish them the best for the future because it is obvious that Putin will not last in power forever. Sooner or later, he will die, and we will see what will happen in post-Putin Russia. I wish we had all learnt from our mistakes, and we wouldn't treat them with superiority. This is what happened under the Yeltsin administration. He was the puppet of Washington and everybody treated him as a drunk clown, soiling Russia's dignity.

I did brief research on this legal matter. I think we should make a difference between the two concepts: conviction (to decide and state officially in court that somebody is guilty of a crime) and indictment (an official statement accusing somebody of a crime).

Donald Trump has not been convicted yet, so he can purchase a weapon if we interpret the Federal Law plainly.

Under the main federal gun law, 18 U.S.C. 922, does not appear to prohibit people under indictment from simply buying or possessing weapons... ATF Identify Prohibited Persons.

The Gun Control Act (GCA), codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g), makes it unlawful for certain categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms or ammunition, to include any person:

convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

who is a fugitive from justice;

who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act, codified at 21 U.S.C. § 802);

who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

who is an illegal alien;

who has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;

who has renounced his or her United States citizenship;

who is subject to a court order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or

who has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

I fully agree with you.

On the other hand, just for an addendum to your comment, I miss more efforts by European institutions to let Russia be part of those. I am not asking for a full membership because I understand that Russia needs deep changes in its public administration and system, as an overall. But, again, I think that Frankfort (or Paris, depending on the context) should have made more efforts towards Russia and tried to take a more neutral position, as much as Switzerland has always done.

It would be a great act of hypocrisy of Western institutions if we let Ukraine be part of everything unconditionally. In this sense, I perceive that Ukraine is playing two sides: the U.S. and the European Union. When Zelensky is not able to get funding to keep fighting or has some disagreement with an EU state (such as Poland), he quickly goes to Washington; and if Republicans will the 2024 elections, he will ask for some integration in the EU. I cannot trust the behaviour of a nation like this one, and Zelensky is demanding more than Ukraine should get in real circumstances.

Yeah, it was pathetic. What I cannot understand is the big efforts of some politicians and @neomac to deny Ukraine's Nazi past - or even present - arguing that Putin is just a psychopath. Sooner or later, the truth emerges, and we can see how Ukraine really is. But, meanwhile, the funding is still going up in a country where their identity is blurred, and they don't even know what their (real) expectations are in the long term.

I'd prefer me, you and our entire families to be bombed, raped and tortured by the Russians — neomac

Ask to yourself: Are the families of the Western world responsible?

Secondly, why don't we care about the rest of the world as well as we do about Ukraine? What about Syria? Afghanistan? Niger? Libya and Morocco natural disasters? Do these ring a bell to you?

Thirdly, what about Russian citizens? They are not guilty of having Putin as President running their country. You are speaking about deaths, injuries and rapes. But these are suffered by the people of the other "side" too, but we do not care because our politicians are hypocritical. In this stupid war, it seems that there is only one victim and the rest "deserve" to be dead and isolated economically from the rest of the world. What a terrible mistake to not allow Russia to express themselves better. The aggression of Putin is not justified, as well as should not be disrespect for everything related to Russia either.

It was cultural and identitarian too. — neomac

Interesting. You can fight for your American identity and cultural values, but hey! We do not allow Russians to defend their Cyrillic heritage! Russians bad and Putin a dictator! :roll:

And yet American fought against the British empire for their independence, despite "the same pillars of each nation". — neomac

True, but both nations agree on the fact that they are in the Western world, and share the same language and interests. The rebellion of the USA against the UK was a taxation or public administration problem rather than a cultural war.

Sure, Zelensky has definitely failed with you. So disappointing. Now I'm gonna pick his ears next time I see him. — neomac

Nah, we all are already busy paying the high costs and inflation, while our public budget is feeding them. :roll:

Yes, I can figure it out somehow. Well, for most ordinary people, they are easily confused with Russians because they share the same pillars of each nation: culture, language (Cyrillic) and religion (Orthodox church). So, the constant efforts of Zelensky to not be compared to the Russian spectrum is, more or less, vane.

I agree with the first link on the fact that Ukraine's identity is messy.

Good data and reliable information, thanks for sharing it, and I have been reading your posts since for the last months because you provide solid facts. :up:

But look at the data, its science! — Merkwurdichliebe

He doesn't like science and evidence which cannot back up his fanaticism. The only thing he does against counter-arguments or people who disagree with him is insulting:

Good god you’re pathetic.

That’s just a stupid strawman.

It’s amazing people can be such complete dupes.

, etc.

Thanks for clarifying the context, mate :up:

From the article, the cartoon received negative criticism from around the world. — Amity

You are right. It has received criticism from other Muslim countries which are friends with Turkey, for example: Argelia. This country is not a big "friend" of France's either.

This thread makes me feel nostalgic! I remember sharing cartoons with you when I was a very recent member of TPF. I missed its existence when it is pretty good, indeed.

I agree with you. The new cartoon from Charlie Hebdo is very offensive. The people of Turkey are not guilty nor responsible for such a natural disaster. I understand that political cartoonists need freedom of speech to do their work, and to show off criticising politicians.

But in this case, it is different: I see that two normal people appear with a satirical phrase. I think it is hurtful without any cause or reason. If Erdoğan were the one who was drawn in the cartoon, the Turkish people would have interpreted it differently. More than attack to their victims, a clever criticism on Erdoğan's management regarding the effects of the earthquake.

Wasn't that your main purpose from the beginning? You were not using arguments trying to convince me, you just shared your amazement at my rejection of the mail-in system. Simple and plainly. Time to move on, and stick to the arguments and facts. Good night!

snowflake!?

You are the one who quickly felt intimidated when I disagreed with you regarding the counting mail-in votes. I have provided some arguments for why I consider it a flawed system. Maybe I lacked rigid evidence, but the point was not believing in such a system blindly. I hope you got the message at least.

On the other hand, You were "forcing" me to believe in mail-in votes, you even looked devastated. You found someone like me who doesn't follow up your argument plainly. Oh, here are the proofs, which are very popular in this thread: There's no casual connection for some reason in their minds., Fighting bad guys can feel terribly biased when the guy I want to win happens to be the bad guy., Did you know Donald trump himself does mail in voting? The latter is my favourite one. It is clear that you are a mail lover.

Thanks! Your way of seeing things is dead good. :cool:

there's likely always a bit of vote fraud. No material evidence of what the conspiracy theorists claimed, though — jorndoe

Interesting data, indeed. Well, your post just proves that I am - more or less - right.

If I didn't make you feel threatened, did I physically harm you? Or did I bring harm to you in some sort of social or financial way? — flannel jesus

Time to leave it there... I think you are starting to troll me.

This is a discussion about American politics, or rather, a discussion about an American politician, so of course it will default to that. I know practically nothing about the current politics in Spain although I know there is a general distinction between socialism and conservatism — praxis

It is comprehensible because we are not that interesting, and better for you because you will feel disappointed if you dive in our matters. Although this is an American political thread, it has an impact worldwide and the President of the United States is the leader of the Western world and NATO (where Spain is part of). I think that when Republicans are in power, Spain has a better position in the American radar. Bush and Aznar were good mates, but this story remains in the past. It is true that Obama's family have visited Spain a few times too, and we were also on your radar in our worst time (2008 - 2012). I understand that maybe some of you do not understand why we care if we are not Americans. Well, I want to highlight my words again: The USA has a big impact on the world and this is why we are interested. My participation in this thread is not with bad faith nor silliness. And, if you do not mind, I will keep in touch on this topic, and see how this matter ends up. Respecting your nation, of course!

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

OK, I see. Then, we can assume that the American postal service is reliable, but this doesn't mean that it works worldwide (it doesn't matter if you care about other nations or not).

I'm sorry for using force on you. Did I harm you or did I just make you feel threatened that harm would happen? — flannel jesus

I didn't feel threatened, I just wanted to discuss your obsession with the mail-in vote system. I think you would be very happy working in a post office, and counting votes.

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

One of the main interesting things about this amazing debate we are having, is that you folks are given for granted that I root for Republicans when I am not even American. Speaking frankly, yes, I am right wing (if my attitude has not already proved it). On the other hand, that statistic proves it all. 58 % is a big percentage of mail-in votes. Why did they have such confidence in this system when it is clear that it is flawed? A lot of unknowns remain. I appreciate your effort in showing the evidence, but the system is still opaque to me. It is not only about who is benefited by this, I am talking about a guaranteed system. Maybe I look like a stubborn in my opposition to mail-in votes, but at least you would agree with me that it is not a perfect system which we should believe in blindly.

Conspiracy theories? Just because we show a system which lacks guarantees? I never thought that being sceptic would be a big deal.

If someone forcing you to believe that? By what means are they forcing you to believe that? — flannel jesus

In particular, you are one of the obsessed supporters of mail voting systems. Whenever I made a counter-argument, you quickly answered: How can you not believe in this system? It is perfect ans they do not rig results!!!1!1!1!1!.

I understand your point, and I partially agree with. Again, the core of our debate is whether the use of mail voting can lead to fraud or not. I still defend yes, it can be election fraud on this, why? These are my arguments:

The system is trusted by post officers. I don't have anything against them, and they have all my respect. But you know, people can make mistakes too. If you are not the one who deposit the ballot in the box, you are acting blindly, and you have to believe in the system a lot. It could happen that those post officers are forced to switch the numbers of ballots or fake them.
Evidence: https://www.msn.com/es-es/noticias/espana/un-juzgado-abre-una-investigaci%C3%B3n-ante-los-indicios-de-compra-de-votos-por-correo-en-melilla/ar-AA1bnnbm

Rejected for arriving late or other human errors which complicate the counting. Hundreds of thousands of ballots go uncounted each year because people make mistakes, such as forgetting to sign the form or sending it in too late. Evidence: Source, NPR survey of individual Secretary of State and state election offices Credit: Ruth Talbot and Elena Moore/NPR. https://www.npr.org/2020/07/13/889751095/signed-sealed-undelivered-thousands-of-mail-in-ballots-rejected-for-tardiness

:up:

Good points :up: But our economic collapse comes from the left wing, because when the right wing rules, Spain can be a better place for investments.

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

It is less popular, no doubts. But they win because they are covered by separatists and nationalists from Catalonia and the Basque Country. At the end of the day, it has more value for a few voters of Barcelona or Bilbao than the rest of the nation. I am not living under a democracy and I have already accepted it...

Those are good points, Baden, and I partially agree. Your arguments can only be applied to democracies which work well or at least better than other countries. I have no doubt that it can work in the UK or Ireland, because I guess there is a bit of corruption in public administration if we compare it amongst other nations.

On the other hand, it is true that I am not providing enough evidence that the mail voting system could be a fraud, and I understand the criticism in my argumentation. Nonetheless, this is not correlated to the fact that I have to believe in such a system blindly. That's what I am complaining about. Some users see this system as purely perfect. Well, we are in a philosophical forum, and we have the right to debate and doubt.

My intention is not to support Trump or just to "flex" and act as an internet troll. I just wanted to make counterarguments and doubt everything. Why do I have to believe in the mail voting system? Why do I have to condemn Trump when an American court hasn't condemned him yet? Etc. Who am I to do so?

It’s amazing people can be such complete dupes. — Mikie

You are allowed to insult me because you are a moderator. If I were the one who disrespects you, I would be banned instantly. Ah, the hypocrisy man. As a good socialist.

Socialists are usually accused of having too much confidence in the state and left to their own devices they’d walk wide-eyed into an Orwellian dystopia. — praxis

Interesting. Here the opposite happens. Most of the leftists are divided and do not take part in the elections. But, paradoxically, when the participation is low, they win. Because the right wing didn’t have a good plan to move the voters or people in general (when they are larger in numbers statistically)

Nah, you are not silly. It is just curious how the mail-in ballots and the lack of participation always benefit the left.

He voted by mail before he was president. — flannel jesus

Exactly. Before everything went twisted, you have answered to yourself.