Only if the US would flip to Russia's side more permanently, and in that case the US is probably the bigger threat. — ChatteringMonkey

The US administration isn't hawkish, in spite of the talk about taking Greenland and Canada. There's a lot of cognizance of the costs involved in governmental projects. If a tariff would make Canada give up their sovereignty, that would be on the table, in fact Trump publicly floated that.

Europe unites more military, as geo-political forces push it to do now, then we can detter Russia on its own form attacting other countries I would think. We obviously shouldn't be naïve about it, and assume they won't attack, we definitely should detter it with military strenght. — ChatteringMonkey

:up:

To put it in another way, I don't get why people think prolonging this war helps in protecting us from further future Russian aggression — ChatteringMonkey

Honestly, I don't think Biden counted on Putin allowing his economy, society, and military to be laid to waste by the war in Ukraine. That's just such a bizarre thing to do. Or maybe it's just bizarre from an American point of view? There just hasn't been a rational pivot from Biden's hawkish stance.

Yea. I think morality is more about the heart than the mind. I don't know how to translate that into science-speak.

An example is Iago in Othello. Objectively, all he did was steal a handkerchief and tell some minor lies. But we all know that he committed a massive betrayal. He used his wits to bring out the worst in another person. As he said, "Hell and Night must bring this monstrous birth to the world's light.". Hell and Night are both ancient gods from dead religions. That gives them a collective unconscious vibe.

So the intellect will let Iago off the hook. The heart knows he was a destroyer.

You don't see Putin as a future threat to the region?

Did I answer it in the post above you. Sorry, a belated response. — Tom Storm

I don't think so. Also, I think contemporary medicine has defined health pretty thoroughly, so I don't know what to make of that part of the argument.

Ok, but I wasn't responding to Harris or the OP, I was responding to you when you said - — Tom Storm

If you read the article posted in the OP, Harris is saying that it's ok that we don't have a "conceptual definition" for morality because we just sort of know what it is. One would assume from this that he's going the moral relativism route. Instead, he wants to use folk sentiments about morality to prop up some sort of absolute, or in his words, "objective" morality. That's just kind of ridiculous.

My comment to Amadeus was basically that he needs to make up his mind.

Are you reading that article differently?

I understand what you're saying, but that doesn't mesh with the Harris comments posted in the OP.

In this sense, Harris' focus on well-being as a moral foundation is reasonable: it’s not about finding cosmic meaning, but about creating value in our relationships and ensuring that we make life better for ourselves and others. — Tom Storm

Aren't you describing consequentialism? If Harris defines morality as consequentialism, why would he give the opinion that morality doesn't have to have a clear definition in order to be rationally discussed?

When Augustus turned Rome into a dictatorship, he lauded the health of the Roman Republic. They never officially had a revolution.

I think Harris wants to have his cake and eat it too. 'It's a meaningless universe, but you shouldn't do x.'.

We always thought that diplomacy was the main venue to solve disputes (I still think it is), but, sadly, the main superpowers are forcing us to spend a lot of money on the army because we no longer can trust them. — javi2541997

Diplomacy wouldn't work on Hitler.

I refuse! No more benefits for foreigners! — Benkei

That's kind of nationalistic though.

Don't forget China, which probably stands to benefit the most from all of this. — Mr Bee

That's billions of people worth of benefit!

Sometimes and it gets points for reforming sinners. — Gregory

How would you describe that reforming process? Or any kind of redemption?

I don't think the US government has any clear goal at the moment.

They think AGI will land in Trumps term, another wildcard. — ChatteringMonkey

The plot thickens.

k
God almighty came down from heaven to save us from his own wrath by allowing himself to be tortured to death. This strategy worked,
— frank

This does not work because it is against karma and justice to substitute atonment. Get your theology right — Gregory

It gets points for sanity though.

I think Vance wants to rally 'round the family. Musk wants to colonize Mars. Trump wants to avoid further prosecution while changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico. We'll see where it all lands.

I don't think eating Europe is on the to-do list right now.

If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?

This war is going to end. — Hanover

Russia has a tendency to want to annihilate the Ukrainian identity. It gives them joy to try. Ukrainians say no to this for some strange reason. I get the feeling this war might outlive all of us.

More effective at what? Or do you care? — tim wood

Accomplishing their goals.

1) is faith an emotion or a thought? What if it is neither — Gregory

God almighty came down from heaven to save us from his own wrath by allowing himself to be tortured to death. This strategy worked, even though he didn't actually die and most people weren't saved. Faith is a bamboozle.

Intellectuals hate it when audacity is more effective than intelligence. :sad:

Do women make more doing the same jobs? Or do they just have better jobs?

Is Vance actually the president at this point?

He appointed the first female chief of staff. I think he is sexist, but wants to exploit talent more than he wants to misogynize.

The National Guard is integrated into the Federal command structure. States have some authority toward mobilization but not an override of Executive decisions. — Paine

I hadn't realized that the SCOTUS' authority was backed by the executive branch. So the SCOTUS actually has no power over the executive. That means we were never too far from dictatorship. All it takes is an executive with the will to ignore the SCOTUS, and a legislative branch that's behind the executive. Voila.

I take the view points, let them all rattle around in my head in a hurricane of different thoughts, not all are left standing. — DifferentiatingEgg

:up: More things for rattling:

Kierkegaard said faith is like floating in water that is 70,000 fathoms deep. He was talking about faith that's along the lines of acceptance. On the other hand, I've never quite understood what Augustine was trying to do with faith. I wish I could ask him some questions. I don't think faith is really one concept for all uses of the word. You have to try to discern what someone means by it, put yourself in their shoes and see what they're seeing. But if they're experiences are very different from your own, you may be unable to grasp what they're seeing.

Second, the judicial system has (had?) great authority, but it doesn't have great power. — BC

So their power just came down to respect for rule of law? What about the National Guard?

If the goal is to pave the way for greater authoritarianism, the judicial branch would have to be rendered powerless. This occurred to me a while back, so I was expecting some ramp up in anti-judiciary rhetoric.

In 1930's Louisiana, there was a governor who became a dictator by taking over the state legislature. He fired some judges and was eventually shot and killed by the son of one of the judges he fired. If history repeats, we should expect assassination attempts after judges are removed. The problem is that even if all the key players were killed, there's no viable opposition to take over right now. That doesn't mean it couldn't develop, but if it did, the US would sink into internal conflict in a way it hasn't experienced since the Civil War. I think most likely the US will be off the world stage for the foreseeable future.

102?

Seek God etc. [in your hearts] all else is talk — ENOAH

"In the depths of our hearts the light of God is shining on a soundless sea with no shore.". --Rumi

You have to take something as granted, yes. That's a long way from what is involved in faith. One can review what one takes as granted, but to review what one takes on faith is to breech that faith. — Banno

Sounds like you made up your own religion.

Or faith is the antithesis of rationality. — Banno

If you like. You were born with some of that irrational faith. You can't live without it.

And, the average American manages a comfortable lifestyle on the average American income which is around $65,000 annually.
https://www.sofi.com/learn/content/average-salary-in-us/ — Metaphysician Undercover

Only 15.7% of Americans make that much. 57% of Americans make that or less. here

Since you think $65,000 is enough to make ends meet without struggle for an average family, I'm guessing you're like a 100 years old?

Even if that is representative of "the average American", how is it anything other than having to work for a living? — Metaphysician Undercover

Nobody was talking about working for a living. Ssu was saying America is rich because of its global influence. I was saying the average American isn't rich.

Wouldn't it be wonderful to hear the sounds the workers made building the classical structures of Egypt? — Banno

That would be awesome

Speaking of sliding, the delta blues beat comes from laboring songs, songs that are meant to coordinate action so everyone does the same thing at the same time. It creates anticipation. I wonder if laboring songs may have been part of the emergence of a sense of time. As ancient monument builders dragged giant stones, was the concept of a precise moment in the future coming into consciousness? When we all pull on the rope together?

Whoever's writing the software for this matrix is going off the rails.

Trump and Vance tell Zelensky to get out of the Oval Office. Get out!