Anywhere means: "From all places everyone has looked, the cat is on the mat." That is consensus subjective or is that just what you mean by objective?

""From my perspective, this sentence is in English" is first person perspective.

"I like ice cream" defines "like" as "from my perspective." The grammatical limitations on the correct use of pronouns doesn't speak to the metaphysical perspective.

How can one not have perspective? The view from nowhere?

Here's a simple test you might use to check if some fact is objective or subjective. Ask if it can be said in the first person. — Banno

Your test isn't whether it can be said in first person, but any person. This is because "person" simply references perspective. That is I/you/he likes ice cream are all correct and they occur in 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person. You posit by definition that the statement "the cat is on the mat" is objective, but that simply points out a grammatical difference in that the author of the sentence hasn't offered perspective.

The metaphysical question is dodged by the diversion to grammar. The question still must be asked based upon whose perspective is the cat on the mat. If your answer is that it is a universal perspective, then I ask who had this universal perspective to author that sentence? If the answer is no one, then I can't fathom how that sentence got written.

A last wrinkle as to pronoun perspectives a that there does exist an objective pronoun "one" ( 3rd person objective/4th person). "Banno should eat his green beans if he wants to be happy" is 3rd person, and per your rule subjective. As noted "I" and "he" (the 1st and 2nd perspectives) work as well and the sentence remains subjective. But what if "one" is substituted for "Banno" in that sentence? That is a pronoun driven objective statement.

Note too the complications arisimg from the entry of the moral "should" in that sentence.

And last:

Any fact can be put into the third person. "Banno prefers vanilla ice to chocolate"; "This text is in English" — Banno

"This text is in English" is not third person. It's not in any person grammatically, but metaphysically it must be.

When you will point me to some members who chose to study Plato and Aristotle in moslem countries, I will begin reading your link. — sunknight

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotelianism#Islamic_world

Guess you have to start reading.

Multiculturalism and postmodernism which is how leftists try to destroy European culture is as alien as islam is. — sunknight

What is European culture? What food do they eat, language do they speak, religion do they have, and government system do they use?

The only problem is you try to deny that the European region has a culture of its own. I've got news for you though, it does have one and it's not compatible with islamic culture. Those who embrace the islamic culture, have effectively denied their European one, no matter how blonde their hair is or what their passport says. — sunknight

Why did the Germans bomb London if they all had the same culture?

Also, what is the primary religion of these European nations: Albania, Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina?

As another example of similar censuring, this time of a university law professor who used the N-word in class and later in the presence of a student, neither time directed at anyone, but purely in an educational environment: There was the offense and now the backlash: https://www.thecollegefix.com/emory-faces-censure-complaint-for-punishing-law-professor-who-referenced-n-word/

I'm familiar with it because it's a nearby University, so it's in the local news.

We live in a world where we search to be offended, usually to delegitimize and neutralize an opponent regarding something other than the merits of their position. What we need is a leader who speaks with no filter, does what he wants, and responds to critics with childish taunting and trolling as his followers celebrate in amusement. That's what we got at least.

Not sure if you guys saw this video of Trump after the Mueller report. He never ceases to amaze.

https://twitter.com/i/status/1109962032995069952

Perhaps we should cut through the shit and just fill out applications, exchange background reports and genetic analyses, measure each other for ideal proportions and symmetry, test each other for agility, for intelligence, for respectability, for ethics, and so on, assign scores, and see if the scores cross a minimum that we have decided upon. — petrichor

Such has always been the case, just done with intuition and guesswork, using what limited information we have to make decisions about who to date and who to hire. If today there is more information available and a better ability to assess that information, we would rely upon it. I might have years ago chosen a date just upon her looks and what little I knew about her, whereas today Google, Instagram, and Facebook can provide me a complete history as I peruse her Spring Break pics. It is a worse scenario if I'm misusing the information, discarding people based upon irrelevant details and unnecessary biases, but if that information could be properly assessed, why not? Are you devaluing someone as a human being to simply ask if they fit into your life or into your business?

Dating, like job hunting, is not for the faint of heart, especially for those with limited experience and insecurities. Each rejection is taken far too personally, as if there is some correlation between who they are as a person and whether there is compatibility. Those who find pain in such "competitions" really need to just not worry about the outcome, to have confidence in who they are, to not care about the opinions of others, and to battle forward. Success will actually come through perseverance. This isn't meant as an inspirational speech as much as just asking that you abandon the rationalization that there is some integrity that you're preserving by not entering the fray. The fray is part of life, and the struggle, as @Anthony realizes, is in maintaining one's sense of human dignity while cleaning out toilets, or whatever one need do to survive in the sometimes harsh reality.

If you're looking for an actual inspirational speech, I offer this: https://youtu.be/fFalmesXWMY

In what way, I wonder, do you think it sensible to multiply and divide one's value as a human and maintain non-eusocial self-sufficiency, and sacrality of the work of living? — Anthony

Your value as a human being is unquestioned and infinite. I'm not challenging that. Your role as a worker bee has a specific amount of value. That is reality. Social constructs and morality can't change the fact that if you don't plant any seeds, nothing will grow and if you don't pull the potatoes out of the ground, they won't end up in the pot.

You may be uncomfortable with the fact that the fastest man can outrun the threat or the hardest working man can grow the most food and you may wish that being a caring, nice guy will protect you from the forces of nature and feed you, but that's not how it works.

I understand your lament. You're just not a super competitive guy and you wish the Darwinian forces of nature weren't at work, but they are.

And you know this because its not in the news or have you been there? It is still a theocracy and going by your position regardless whether there is a presence of oppression isn't theocracy socially and politically against the foundation of what democracy stands for anyway? — Anaxagoras

I know what the Vatican is because I am generally educated, not because I've been there. As to my claims that it is tiny (it's 110 acres), it has a very small population (approximately 1,000) and there is no rank and file involuntary citizenship (citizenship is obtained by selection and service to the church), see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vatican_City#Citizenship . Comparing the Vatican to Saudi Arabia, for example, to prove that Christians similarly have theocracies seems quite a stretch.

You then cite the following from my prior post:

I don't believe that Christianity in its modern form supports terrorism
— Hanover — Anaxagoras

In response to this, you cite 6 instances of terrorist groups that use Christianity in support of their terror.

Anticipating that I might not find your examples persuasive, you state:

I know, I know I'm sure you'll move the goal post after learning about this... — Anaxagoras

The problem with this line of discussion is that it is terribly disingenuous because it inaccurately cites me and then it accuses me of changing facts to support my claim. What I actually said was:

I don't believe that Christianity in its modern form supports terrorism,but there are obviously those misguided people who wrongly do things in the name of Christianity. — Hanover

Emphasis added

What this means is that I didn't move the goalposts, but what I did was admit that there are Christians who do unChristian things in the name of Christianity, and I didn't deny that occurs with Muslims as well. What you've done is to remove a critical part of my post and then prove to me that the critical part of my post shouldn't have been removed by you.

I can tell you don't do research.....To much "I don't think" and "I believe" usage. Next time come with facts to substantiate your claims. you're talking to a researcher not some armchair scholar. — Anaxagoras

This is all ad hom. Your analysis of me and of yourself, even if correct, is irrelevant, designed only to self-congratulate and offend.

I'm an American. I've observed Americans at their best and their worse. In the United States, many citizens are guilty of this. For example, shortly after 9/11 U.,S. citizens were targeting people of Indian descent because they felt that Indians from India who wore turbans were Muslim. The Indian community had to explain, listen, they had to explain that their turban was a custom in their faith and had no barring on the Islamic religion. All because Americans thought with one broad stroke of a brush assumed people who wore turbans were Muslim. So yes, I do stereotype on a behavior that is quite common here in the states. — Anaxagoras

My point was that it was logically inconsistent to blame Americans for the sin of stereotyping when it comes to Muslims and then for you to openly admit to the sin of stereotyping when it comes to how you think Americans stereotypically behave. My objection was that you were being logically inconsistent, something you now admit to.

Be specific. Can't presuppose a plausible statement if you cannot substantiate that with evidence. There are plenty Muslim dominated countries. But, to help you out, let look at countries with theocracies:

Vatican

Mauritania

Iran

Sudan

Yemen

Afghanistan

highlighting the bold are you saying those five Muslim countries sponsor terrorism because they're theocratic, if so why isn't the Vatican not a part of it? Or were you inferring something else? — Anaxagoras

I didn't say anything about the theocratic countries sponsoring terrorism. I objected to theocracies as a general proposition, regardless of whether they were terrorist. Theocratic rule is antithetical to the Western democratic norms, which I do believe superior to Muslim theocratic norms. And, as I noted, and which you didn't respond to: (1) I view Western morality objectively superior because to allow otherwise permits a problematic moral relativism, and (2) the Vatican is a tiny administrative state without any inhabitants that don't choose to be there, so there is minimal oppression there.

Are you implying that there isn't a continuance of killings in the name of Christianity? I can name several white nationalist organizations whose Christian faith is a proponent of their beliefs, and they tend to commit criminal acts, and religion is among those as the reason for their acts. But I'll wait for your interpretation of the above quote. — Anaxagoras

I don't believe that Christianity in its modern form supports terrorism, but there are obviously those misguided people who wrongly do things in the name of Christianity. My reply was specifically to your comment where you said, "Christianity has killed more than any other faith in the history of mankind," and I correctly pointed out that is very much a historical artifact, referencing the Crusades and the like.

Which nations that are Muslim are primitive or are you generalizing? — Anaxagoras

As I already noted, those Muslim nations that are theocracies are more primitive the Western democracies, simply by virtue of their deriving their authority from the general will of the people as opposed to their claims their authority comes from God.

A great example of this is the Nation of Islam. Due to racism and racist laws many black Americans had no voice nor any rights or protections under the law. If you live a life of oppression all you need is a charismatic leader to influence you that the "white man" is the devil and that you are a divine people. Train a distressed people with discipline, pervert sacred texts for one's own gain, and demonize a target you can create an extremist organization. So yes the western powers do have a hand in this indeed and yes this is why many Muslims even those straddling the moderate to extreme fence believe. — Anaxagoras

Sure, and the murderer on the inner city street grew up with nothing and had no other options but to murder, so I'll excuse him as well. The vast majority of those who grow up in difficult situations don't become terrorists, so I'm going to allow for a certain amount of free will here, accepting that there are always two paths one can travel, and holding those responsible who choose the worse path.

Reading is indeed fundamental. Stop reading into things with cognitive dissonance and read, if I wanted to be racist and insult the white demographic I wouldn't use jargon nor waste time writing an entire paragraph. Jesus, read. — Anaxagoras

I'm pointing out you were racist and sexist in your comments, regardless of whether you could have been more blatantly so. You specifically discounted the opinions of white men due to their being white men. You may think your discrimination against those based upon race and sex is justified, but all racists and sexists do. I'm not just hurling an insult at you by calling you names. I'm pointing out that your comments intentionally or not are in fact racist and sexist.

Who said this above bullshit? I didn't infer such things. Bro, on another note a woman's body is her body she ultimately has the final say so. until we men start giving birth through a a potential third canal or something crazy we have no say so on what a woman should do with her body no matter how unfair it seems. When you have a full breathing human come out of you then you can determine the fate of such a human. but again we are getting away from the subject. — Anaxagoras

You specifically brought up abortion and indicated that a woman has the right to decide whether to abort or not. So it was you who brought up what you now describe as bullshit. You didn't imply it, you explicitly stated it, and you do so here again. The idea that an expectant mother can choose to abort at the 8th month, for example, is a radical view that you're taking. If you don't think you've presented that as your position, re-read what you've said. My point remains: the question of what is a protectable human life is a question both men and women have the right to answer. Even Roe v. Wade permits this,

This so-called leader who espouses in glee that he grabs women by the genitalia and that we still have a base that sees nothing wrong with this is alarming. With that being said the finger wagging towards Muslims and their respective countries is like our way of introducing pot and kettle. — Anaxagoras

You're claiming logical equivalency between the Trump presidency and Muslim theocracy?

See, you're no different...So miss me with the "I largely disagree with the OP bullshit. You're full of shit just like the author that wrote this. Christianity is sophisticated huh for sophisticated people? The fuck out of here...I need not responding to the rest of the bullshit you wrote. — Anaxagoras

Yes, the Christian theology being taught at Harvard, for example, is quite different than the Christianity being taught in the hills of Arkansas. The Islam being taught in Harvard is also quite different from that being taught by Hamas.

As to your last comment, is throwing yourself on the floor and having a temper tantrum effective in other aspects of your life?

There are those who are okay with being merchantable and there are those who aren't — Anthony

Sure, there are those who live in reality and accept it for what it is and those who don't. You have utilitarian value as an employee, and it has to be measured. If I can till a field in an hour and you a day, I get the job and the town gets fed. You get the job and not.

This has nothing to do with your value as a person. You can't conflate employee worth with human worth.

The human resource personage essentially holds the power to deny or affirm a livelihood for the candidate. As such, the interviewer likely often takes a sadistic manipulative posture toward the potential hire..power drunk, as it were. The interviewee, even more so, feels (social) anxiety toward the suspense not knowing whether they'll be hired...which tends to be pendent to a pathological masochism, as they grovel around and stutter trying to behave as though they had no weaknesses. — Anthony

This describes not only an unhealthy attitude of both the interviewee and interviewer, it describes a poor decision making process. I've been interviewed and have been the interviewer, and in neither instance did I experience what you've described. What an employer wants is a good employee and the interview should therefore be based upon figuring that out. A solid potential employee often has other opportunities, and the interview is often an opportunity for that person to see if it is where she wants to work.

If a company is sending in power drunk interviewers to conduct the interviews, they're probably not getting very good employees. By the same token, if you're stuttering and groveling, I can't imagine that is a successful way to land a job.

I realize it's not always fair and just, but I also don't think the dysfunctional situation you've described is typical, especially not in places worth working.

My thoughts exactly. I was about to move it, but then I thought maybe there was some clarification that could leave it here. So, @S why is this here?

Terrorist no. But it is the type of sensationalist asinine approach to another faith that can develop extremist tendencies or attract others with extremist tendencies. This "we are better than you mentality" is the kind of element extremists especially those on the right side of politics love. — Anaxagoras

I can't excuse terrorism, regardless of whatever excuse a terrorist might provide, including the unpersuasive "you made me do it with all your hate" argument.

Unfortunately a lot of people very often conflate western ideals with U.S. American ideals (I have been guilty of this) and tend to impart the common uneducated misappropriate rant that Americans here often do. — Anaxagoras

In a single breathe you condemn small minded stereotyping while also stereotyping how Americans tend to act.

The whole "the west is better because" then followed by redundant and rhetorical reasons is not an attractive approach. In addition, to castigate an entire faith for the actions of a few (out of 1.8 billion Muslims Muslim terrorism is a few in comparison to the hundreds to the billion) leaves open to the whataboutisms for other faiths. — Anaxagoras

I'm not talking about the small number of terrorists, but the rather large number of Muslims living under theocratic rule.

Now, I don't like to do a kill count but I'm quite sure both historically and presently, Christianity has killed more than any other faith in the history of mankind. — Anaxagoras

It's been quite a few centuries that Christians killed in the name of Christianity, which was my point in referencing the fact that many of the Muslim nations are culturally primitive in terms of acceptance of basic human rights.

People forget that Western powers have a hand in influencing whole governments to rebel against their leads and there have been western powers that have abandoned people (the very people they originally had supported) and leaving them like lambs to the slaughter. — Anaxagoras

I don't think it's forgotten at all, but it forms the common basis for blaming the West for the terrorism exacted upon it by Muslims when it does occur.

The same is like that here as well. Whenever we discuss women's rights online a lot of white men seem to be up in arms about why we need to discuss women's rights then most certainly it turns into a shouting match of who is the most oppressed or why we can't force a women to have a baby when she wants an abortion because she was raped and so forth. Yes socially we are improved but we are in no moral position to wag our finger at someone. — Anaxagoras

You'll have to explain to me why a white male's opinion as to the treatment of women should be discounted because of race and gender. It sounds patently racist and sexist, but perhaps you meant something else. I also don't fully appreciate why women are in a superior position to know when human life begins and why women ought be the final authority of when an abortion is appropriate fetacide and not inappropriate infanticide, so that too needs further explaining.

Regardless, what you describe in terms of Western sexism is child's play when compared to the relegated status of Muslim women in the Muslim world. It's one thing to debate the complex question of when life begins and quite another to institutionalize male superiority through law.

It is entirely possible to separate this out between primitive culture versus primitive religion, with the West's adoption of Christianity making Christianity appear more sophisticated simply because it is the ideology of the more sophisticated peoples. The same holds true within Christianity as well, with the religious views of those in uneducated and unsophisticated regions of the US being far less sophisticated than their more urbanized counterparts. It's why you see snake handling and speaking in tongues in one region and an intellectual approach in the other, despite their reliance upon the same sacred documents. That is to say I'm willing to grant that Islam itself is not the problem, but we can't deny the obvious superiority of life in the US than in Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, or even Pakistan and those people's reliance upon their religion to support their continued way of life.

This is a philosophy forum and I would at least expect someone to construct a philosophical argument at least partially academic for their approach to the subject. But no, this is the ramblings of some nut job who most likely will go to a mosque and kill another 50 people. — Anaxagoras

Do you really think it's "most likely" our poster is a Christian terrorist, or is this post just more hyperbole devoid of philosophical or academic value?

I say this largely disagreeing with the OP, feeling it's really knee jerk reaction to well publicized accounts of Muslim terrorism on Western targets and the obvious observation that many Muslim nations are in undeveloped parts of the world. I think we can blame our poster for having an emotive and not fully nuanced view, but I think we shouldn't be dismissive of the question of whether there is something about Islam that has left its followers in nations centuries behind the West in so many areas of development. A woman's role in those societies, for example, is not at all acceptable to us in Western countries. We can't just shrug that off without accepting a problematic moral relativism.

My point here is that I agree with you that it's a waste of time to shout "My religion is better than yours!" and expect any change. I think it's also a waste of time to yell back at them calling them murderers. Our poster poses no threat to anyone.

For all things that one or another person does wrong, the Western system has produced far better results than has the Muslim system. — Ilya B Shambat

I would agree that democratic rule is superior to theocratic rule. We really don't have current day Christian theocracies to use for comparison against the number of Muslim theocracies. The only current day Christian theocracy is Vatican City, but that serves more as a headquarters to the Catholic Church and there are no rank and file citizens with no affiliation to the Church.

The "Western system" is a secular system. A Muslim system, by definition, is not. If you're pointing out that Muslim nations allow their religious leaders too much authority, I would agree, but I would object as much to having Christian influence imposed upon me in a Western nation. Keep in mind though that this is an argument for secularism over theocracy, which I do agree with.

I think that those societies would do well to adopt Christianity instead of Islam. That way they will have social stability without it being based on a terrible ideology that, among other things, promises boys in heaven. — Ilya B Shambat

This says more than the OP by claiming that Christianity specifically (as opposed to "the West") is superior to Islam. I'd probably guess you're Christian from this statement. I happen to be Jewish, and I can't imagine it'd be a worthwhile conversation for me to tell you how Judaism is superior to Christianity, what with it's silly reliance upon a magical messiah that supposedly arose from the dead.

I'm going to further speculate that you're Catholic, which would then allow me to launch into an attack on the Catholic Church, just to show you how morally corrupt they are, which really arises out of a fairly absurd ideology that demands grown men repress all sexual desires. What I think is that you ought be Mormon actually, as the life expectancy and quality of life is far better in Utah than in Nevada, which I think owes itself to that strange breed of Christianity revolving around gold tablets or some other such nonsense that they practice so devoutly there.

The psychologist fallacy, holding that it is an informal fallacy to assume your idiosyncratic psychological bias is shared by all:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist%27s_fallacy

It seems to me that people don't want to be happy — Wallows

This suggests happiness in being unhappy.

So rednecks are self sufficient and hard working and hippies shiftless, except the ones who aren't.

What about blacks, Jews, and Asians? What does everyone think about them? Admire them or hold the them in contempt?

For the record, I was born in 1966, which makes me one of the first citizens of Gen X. As one of its eldest statesmen, I can say that it is was and remains the finest generation. It was the last generation that considered tattoos only acceptable for those who once served in the military, lived in trailer parks, or served time in prison. When I was born, as the record reveals, the world was in black and white. Today we have cell phones and pornography availability previously unimaginable. The transition has been flawless for my generation of survivors. We are also the funniest and best looking generation, each and every one of more clever than the rest. My accession to moderator on this forum is precisely the type of success my generation has come to expect.

If you made a movie making fun of America’s move into Vietnam during the Vietnam war (or the 40
Years after for that matter) you would be blasted by everyone everywhere. — TogetherTurtle

There was a very powerful anti-Vietnam movement throughout the war, which many would credit as hastening the end of that conflict. In fact, I'd say Vietnam was a turning point in American history that ended the reverence for American military policy. You'd probably make a better point in arguing that belittling America's involvement in World War 2 would not go over very well, but that has to do with the nature of the conflict more than the sorts of senses of humor the various generations have.

As for the jokes I thought were funny that older people thought were horrible, I suppose you could do a quick google search for memes about the Vietnam war and the disaster that was, about horrible illnesses like AIDs or tuberculosis, or events like 9/11 or the any terrorist attacks in Europe. That last one is my favorite personally right now, those Europeans really have dug themselves into a hole and laughing at that dumpster fire has brought me a lot of joy. Of course, I don’t think those poor people living in Orwellian failed socialst surveillance states are laughing too much. Especially the British, with those acid attacks. — TogetherTurtle

I was looking for a specific joke, not a generalization so that I could see if I would laugh or not. I'm not particularly sensitive, so if I didn't think it was funny, maybe it wasn't. I don't know really because you've not shared the joke.

An AIDS joke isn't really funny to those who've watched their friends buried, a 9/11 joke isn't really funny for those New Yorkers who once worked in the Twin Towers, and the Vietnam War isn't funny to those who can't hold onto any relationships. For that reason, such jokes are usually shared only among very close friends who know their audience and know one another's true opinions. It's entirely different to tell an insensitive joke in private where you respect the sensitivities of those who might be offended as opposed to insisting that you have the right to say whatever you want to whoever you want.

However, in stark contrast to this, there seems to be a prevalent culture among "baby boomers" (typically the younger baby boomers, and especially the ones in the public eye) to take almost everything seriously, no matter how stupid or absurd. — TogetherTurtle

I really don't know what you're talking about with this observation.

Why do people get offended at jokes? — TogetherTurtle

Maybe you lay on us a joke you think super funny that the old people haven gotten offended at and we'll see if we can tell you why they're so terribly offended.

If you go back in time and watch some old sit-coms (like All in the Family for example), you'll see that offensive humor was far more in vogue back then than now. We currently live in a very sensitive society, and that's not the work of boomers as much as it the result of an increasingly diverse society where more people have a voice than before. Those who typically are most sensitive are those that are more liberal than conservative, and there are plenty of conservative old people. Plenty.

I too wonder about this especially people from the south who talk about the "good ole days" considering that back in those days people of a different skin pigmentation were lynched and all. — Anaxagoras

The OP was referencing baby boomers, not those over 100 years old. As noted in the Wiki article,
"Lynchings were most frequent from 1890 to the 1920s, with a peak in 1892." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynching_in_the_United_States.

Regardless, what I suspect is that those reminiscing about the good old days, whether having grown up in the Jim Crow south or even the apparently racist free North, are not talking about how great it was to be white and privileged and how they could kick around those less fortunate, but they are probably referencing their day to day lives, living among friends and in places now long past that they miss and have fond memories of. Sentimentality is not a terribly complicated thing and it's understandable that someone "old" who came into being in a different world and who had adapted to those circumstances at that time would yearn for its return.

I agree in part with the idea that warm memories of days gone by are often romanticized, but I don't agree that they can be dismissed as entirely false. Some good things are lost and not all progress is good. To say otherwise suggests a perfect world where evolution constantly corrects, and that simply is not so.

What about your personality/brain do you think drives you to study philosophy? — Edward

All for the chicks and the money.

But maybe you don't like Buckley either? — csalisbury

It's not so much a question about whether I agree with Buckley or Chomsky. It's a question of whether they deserve special attention because of their self-perceived elevated position in society. Questions about what direction society should take are not necessarily empirical and they aren't matters where there will be universal agreement. They are matters of value and particular moral based worldviews, where different people place different value on different things. Chomsky (and Buckley) have no special power of discerning what it right from a value perspective than does the local minister at the church, the guy working the assembly line, the trust fund baby, or the college professor. When anyone steps forward and declares their values and perspective deserving of special attention because of some superiority they believe they have, they are creating a culture war, saying their religion, their god (or their lack of one) is superior to yours

I have a strong feeling ithat you'll adjust to whatever the circumstances are, so long as you can can maintain a no-nonsense persona. — csalisbury

If you're saying that at the end of the day I'm pragmatic, then I'm likely to agree.

You have ideas, but you're content to bracket them, in order to get a rise. Racy joke --> the lesser sense of humor of others --> self-identity, and political ideas confirmed. There's something to that. But there are others as well-rounded as you, and they're not all dry, sardonic trumpians. — csalisbury

Interesting psychoanalysis of. me, along with some defensiveness on your part that suggests I'm elitist myself, being dismissive of those I don't think are smart as me. It really is interesting insight, but I don't know what it adds to the discussion.

tldr: you're playing on an old 'smart 'experts'' vs 'honest, realistic americans' trope, even if you would balk at that trope put so baldly. And you're making that trope align with the liberals vs conservatives dichotomy, even though that isn't accurate, and would give most traditional conservatives minor seizures. — csalisbury

Is the objection you pose here that I'm using hollow rhetoric, pandering to my pro-American base? I don't follow that because @ssu, who seems aligned with me (and typically he's very much not, so I'm trying to get use to this) is Finnish, a progressively liberal Scandinavian country (although from what I gather, a bit more suspicious of communistic leanings due to their proximity and history with Russia).
At any rate, I'm not sure what to make of it because it doesn't appear as a specific objection to something specifically I said, but I'm open to hearing more on this.

@Ilya B Shambat We've really left the topic. My original comments about the Swedes related to the incorrect statement in your OP where you over-generalized and called all of the 1940s Europeans as "brutes." My next comment to @Bitter Crank sarcastically referenced the abundance of Scandinavian descendants in the US Midwest (where he lives) and their stereotypically wholesome demeanor.

Since we're now talking about regional and national personal behavior stereotypes, have we moved on from the unsupportable claims of the OP?

Norwegians? Finns, maybe? Somebody must have disliked them. — Bitter Crank

They were probably not liked at one point when they were vikings, wearing those cool horned hats, wreaking havoc, raping and pillaging. Nowadays they're pretty well liked I think, living up in your neck of the woods, probably complaining about their neighbors' yards and that gosh darn traffic.

This is massive over-simplification, suggesting that the US, every country in west Europe, every former Soviet bloc nation, and the Jewish people all owe their entire identities to World War 2.

At first the Europeans were seen as brutes and the Jews as cowards; now it is the other way around. — Ilya B Shambat

Where's your support for this? The Germans specifically were considered brutes/genocidal maniacs, but who thought the Jews cowards? The Germans blamed them for all sorts of things, but cowardice wasn't one of their complaints. And who thought of the Swiss and Swedes as brutes?

"It is the responsobility of intellectuals to speak the truth and expose lies" — ssu

The hubris is in self-declaring one's self an intellectual, suggesting one belongs in the court of philosopher kings. It is at the heart of liberal elitism, and it forms the core of the left/right polarization. Who is the intellectual in Chomsky's view? I'd suggest it's Obama and not Trump, despite Trump hardly being an intellectual light weight. It's hard to read that without laughing isn't it, it being so ingrained in us that the right and its leadership is thought to either be composed of simpletons or those puppeteers manipulating simpletons.

So, per Chomsky, the duty then is shifted upon those who know better, not the simpletons, not the manipulators, but those even tempered, well educated, well informed academics whose wisdom should guide us. It would seem that it must be Chomsky himself who would be the top intellectual, which should come as no surprise.

Your focus in your OP is in pointing out that many other countries owe their failure to themselves and that the West has not created ALL the problems of the world. That is empirically and clearly true. The bigger question is whether the West has been overall shameful in its behaviors. The predominant liberal view is that it has, despite the view of the right that says it has not. The left is thought of as apologetic and therefore understanding and the right unapologetic and therefore stubborn.

Here's what I think. The US has made tactical mistakes, has faltered morally from time to time, has misstepped and caused unnecessary misery, and has not been a purely angelic force on the world at every turn. Without it though and never having had it on the world stage, we'd all live in a state of barbarism and fear, far less advanced in all regards, and not listening to the musings of Chomsky.

Too many people too eager to shadow box here. "But you're responsible!", yes, to some extent. — S

Don't hate the haters. There's a certain joy in casting aspersion upon others.

The disagreement I suppose is in what we each mean by "to some extent." I probably am less tolerant of drunken behavior than others and not as willing to separate the Dr. Jekyll from the Mr. Hyde, especially if Dr. Jekyll knows that the drink will elicit the appearance of Mr. Hyde. My intolerance is probably the result of my age and experience I guess. I'm sort of over the stage where stumbling drunk is at all okay. At any rate, in your example, I doubt you were terribly irresponsible or dangerous, but more so just a danger to yourself in that you decided to test the tolerance of the police. They probably decided they had enough Ss at the station already and didn't need to cart another one down there, so you lived to see another day.

What I will say is that if this were an aberration, it's more excusable. If you tell us next Monday you've had yet another run in and then this becomes a pattern, I'd say you were worse than the person who intentionally stirred the pot from time to time. At least that person has some deliberation involved, as opposed to someone who knowingly gets themselves out of control and then has everyone around him having to deal with him for the hours it takes to sober up.

If I had a friend (doubtful) and he got really drunk and then told me to fuck off and whatever else, I'd place limited blame on his drunkenness and hold him pretty much fully responsible. In fact, I'd allow a greater excuse to the person who told me that he's been having a really bad day, got fired from work, broke up with his girlfriend, or whatever than someone who had just taken a drunken vacation from reality and went berserk.

But the second is as a greater offense to me, because it expresses active hostility. — csalisbury

Yes, that is true, the intent does matter. The intent to be reckless versus the intent to do actual harm does matter. In fact, the law respects as much, as it would be an entirely different crimes if (1) you killed someone in your car while sober and it was a complete accident , (2) you killed someone in you car while drunk and it was a complete accident, (3) in a fit of road rage, you intentionally slammed into someone with your car and killed them, and (4) you laid in wait for someone to exit their home so that you could mow them down.

The first is entirely involuntary manslaughter and the last is first degree intentional murder, killing in cold blood.

Back to floor pissing though. I do think that an intentional floor pissing is funnier in a way than the tired old drunken closet pissing that we've all heard of. Although I've never done it or seen it done, I like the unapologetic primal element of the intentional floor piss, where you use your urine to express your displeasure. It truly leaves nothing in doubt in terms of where you stand on things.

So, next time your roommate leaves his socks in the hallway and dirty dishes in the sink, which I suspect he does because that's what all roommates do, piss on the floor in his bedroom, leaving a yellowish bubbly puddle right before his bed. Nothing else need be said. He'll know clearly where things stand.

when I consumed the alcohol, a) I didn't intend to cause trouble, and b) I wasn't in full control of myself when I was drunk. — S

I know why you wish to absolve yourself of guilt, but I'm simply pointing out that the law follows the same logic that I do and it isn't just some arbitrary announcement of a rule. The logic (and this would seem to apply for a moral theory as well) is that you are responsible for your recklessness, especially so if you intentionally engage in a reckless act. It applies in all sorts of situations. If I decide to drive my car 100 miles per hour in order to feel the rush that accompanies it, and I crash into a van full of children, killing every last one, I could say rather unconvincingly that I should be absolved of sin because (a) I didn't intend to cause trouble, and (b) I wasn't in full control of myself when the car hit 100 mph because it gets crazy hard to steer at that speed.

My lack of intent to cause trouble is somewhat offset by the fact that I engaged in an act that had fairly foreseeable negative consequences, despite the fact that usually I drive 100 mph without incident. Usually I just get that excited scared effect you feel when you think you're going to die, but somehow you don't. Usually I can sort of control my 100 mph hour car more or less, at least enough that I keep at least 2 wheels on the road. So, it would seem that I should be absolved of guilt don't you think?

I'm not suggesting that morality requires you become a teetotaler, but it does require you accept moral responsibility for all the bullshit you dole out, drunk or sober. You (or I) don't get to say "Sorry dude., I... (a) wrecked your car, (b) broke your lamp, (c) ate all your food, (d) punched you in the head, (e) slept with your girlfriend, (f) pissed on your floor... I was drunk" and expect the "I was drunk" part to matter.

It seems less relevant whether do-gooders are arrogant and whether do-badders and do-nothings are humble than whether good, bad, or nothing is being done. I'd think a hungry person would rather choose to be fed by a son of a bitch than to have a really nice person sit around and shoot the shit with him.

. Being so drunk or high that you're not exactly you is a mitigating circumstance. — S

No it's not. You chose to drink knowing it would compromise your judgment, so you're fully responsible for the mess you created. I suppose if you really didn't know what drinking would do to you, you might have an excuse, but I suspect you've received both formal education in the dangers of alcohol and have learned by prior experience. It's all on you, unmitigated.

The law of the great state of Georgia:

O.C.G.A. 16-3-4 (2010)
16-3-4. Intoxication

(a) A person shall not be found guilty of a crime when, at the time of the act, omission, or negligence constituting the crime, the person, because of involuntary intoxication, did not have sufficient mental capacity to distinguish between right and wrong in relation to such act.

(b) Involuntary intoxication means intoxication caused by:

(1) Consumption of a substance through excusable ignorance; or

(2) The coercion, fraud, artifice, or contrivance of another person.

(c) Voluntary intoxication shall not be an excuse for any criminal act or omission.


It is for this reason that you cannot plead voluntary intoxication as an excuse for causing a motor vehicle collision, arguing that had you been your sober self, it'd have never happened, so there's no reason to prosecute you. That is to say, voluntary intoxication is an aggravating circumstance, not a mitigating one. You can't walk around with a blindfold and earplugs and go slamming into things and then argue that the real, fully aware you would never have done that. If there's a better you, then society should expect to deal with that person, not the voluntarily reckless one.

As I see it, the distinction between patriotism and nationalism is one of oppression and control, with the former accentuating and promoting the positive through celebration and encouragement and the latter imposing upon and oppressing those identified as threats.

I see it similar to the distinction between ethnic pride and racism, with it being perfectly acceptable to have an Oktoberfest with a biergarten and schnitzel and celebration of German culture, but unacceptable to hold an Aryan superiority rally.

Have I spoken some heresy? — Wallows

It's sexist, poorly thought out, and a continuation of your ongoing nonsense about how you love your mommy.

Aren't women just basically better suited for some roles than men are or are I getting this all mixed up? — Wallows

And now we've taken a hard right turn. Women have their place and men theirs. Lovely.

I contend that patriotism was higher under Reagan and GW and that it is now more acceptable in the US to be critical of America within America, which now brings increased conflict between critics and traditionalists.

I do think without an empirical showing of your premise that unhealthy nationalism is on the rise and that it is related to Trump, yours is just another tired anti-Trump rant that ought be relegated to the single thread reserved for that purpose.

Since the inauguration of President Trump, the difference between patriotism and nationalism has attained new heights or division between the two is blurred. — Wallows

Where is the empirical evidence for the claim that patriotism or nationalism has increased under the current administration? Without it, this thread becomes just another anti-Trump rant.

The OP asks if bodybuilders are poor neurotic men, which logically asks three combined questions: Are they poor, are they neurotic, AND are they men? As to the last question, it's clearly not, considering some bodybuilders are women, and the question being linked with the conjunctive, the question is properly answered in the negative.

Perhaps a uselessly technical reply, but one I am satisfied with.