Back in 2020, the Supreme Court ruled that about half of Oklahoma was on land that belongs to the Muscogee tribe. Have you heard anything about how that is working out? — T Clark

Oh yeah! Our history is a huge international problem! I have heard about the Oklahoma land dispute and your comment has heightened my awareness of the complexity of the problem. Some native Americans were more settled than others. I can see how a migratory tribe would have a weaker claim to the land. If they were not present to defend their land, then how can they claim it? I am not saying taking control of their territory is justified. I am just acknowledging the weakness of their case. And we know many times the Native Americans were present to defend their territory and it was taken from them anyway. Now how to we stand up to the rest of the world and tell them they can not do what we did?

As I remember it, "specific performance" is a common law legal principle in equity. It requires that you have parties. One party could be an Indian Tribe. The other party could be the Federal Government. But the court is enforcing an agreement. So there had to have been an agreement (offer, acceptance, consideration). The parties must be subject to the jurisdiction of the court. The court figures out what the agreement was, and then enforces the agreement. The court can award damages (i.e. money, like the U.S. Supreme Court did in a case the United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians). But the Indians rejected that money. They want the land, as specified (specific) in the treaty. Perform; do what you said you would do. — James Riley

Oh my goodness, I think I actually understand what you said. Oregon tribes had a hard time because the treaties they signed were not processed? This was in a show last night. Something like they were not ratified? And White people were encouraged to homestead the land, and they got legal protection, not the tribes. Then the government just decided to declare the tribes no longer existed leaving them to fight for acknowledgement of their existence. Schools for Native Americans were used to make the tribes none existent. The children were sent to a school very far away and prevented from speaking their language of maintaining any traditions. Many children died and an effort has been made to return them to their tribal land.

The fight is not exactly a fight for equality because it is not about being as the Europeans who invaded their land. So now I must ask what does the word equity mean? Of here is a philosophical consideration what are inalienable rights? Do they apply to all humans?

The U.S. has a long history of 1. Screwing Indians; and 2. Buying it's way out of it, when it's own courts find it has screwed the Indians.

By going to court in the first place, Indians have subjected (subordinated) themselves to the jurisdiction of the courts of the other party. That is questionable in the first place. Should not an international court, sitting as an independent arbiter, hear the case, under international law, between sovereign nations? I say yes, but, like Indians, I don't matter. It's all a charade designed to fuck Indians.

Yes, but isn't this the conquers privilege? Look at Israel and the US support of it. :rage: This thread goes with the changing consciousness thread I started because I think in general our consciences is changing. At least the public broadcasting shows I watch are coming from a point of view that what the invading Europeans have done is immoral by today's standards.

If one understands war, and might-makes-right, then it is easier to live with. So, the U.S. won, Indians lost, and they are lucky to get what the U.S. courts give them. But there is a problem: Forget the Indians for a minute. The U.S.'s own Constitution provides that treaties shall be the supreme law of the land. So the U.S. is violating it's own laws when it fails to abide it's own word. The U.S. is not only fucking the Indians then; it is fucking it's own citizens and itself.

Ouch! I think we have an international problem, and what is being said here goes with a changing consciousness. The whole world is judging us and some of those folks have serious weapons. We have lost the assurance of being the winner of all wars. This forces a re-evaluation of ourselves and effectively we are a nation in serious need of psychoanalysis.

The U.S. might argue "pacta sunt servanda, rebus sic stantibus" which is an international law principle that "treaties shall be obeyed; so long as things remain the same." The U.S. would argue that things have changed. But there is also a principle that a party to an agreement can't purposefully change things to get out of an obligation. If the Indians, or time, or a third party had caused the change, maybe. But the U.S. damned the rivers, stopped the grass from growing, blah blah blah. So it can't, in equity or law, get out of it's obligations.

I am loving your explanations, and what of this...

Who are the Uyghurs and why is China being accused ... - BBChttps://www.bbc.com › world-asia-china-22278037
Jun 21, 2021 — China has been accused by the US of genocide and crimes against humanity against the Muslim minority group. — BBC

Internationally we don't have a leg to stand on because we have not respected our treaties with Native Americans, and what we have to done to people of color is totally unacceptable by today's standards, and what is new, is we are becoming aware of how the rest of the world sees us, and how our own history destroys our arguments with China and others. Trump followers do not appear sensitive to this international problem, but can they succeed in halting the change of consciousness that is occurring? Is that even desirable?

Thus, if money is to be paid, pay it as a Fifth Amendment "takings" to all the trespassers who have made a living on, and invested in the Indian lands, and then kick them out and let them start over somewhere else. In other words, don't try to buy your way out by giving chump change to the Indians. Buy your way out by giving chump change to your citizen trespassers who relied upon your failure to keep them out, per the treaty. It's a U.S. thing. Not an Indian thing. If the U.S. stood up, it could then look at Israel with cleaner hands.
3 days ago
T Clark
7.1k
↪James Riley

On the bright side, our fossil fuel economy is not sustainable. I thought when we began fracking for fuel our troubles were at least temporarily over, and I am horrified by what is happening to gas prices and that we are still dependent on foreign oil. I thought this day was far in the future, along with the global warming problems that are already intolerable. How intelligent are we if we do not question if we need to live together differently and build our happiness of something besides material values? And so I have the other thread questioning our changing consciousness and asking questions of men that make them uncomfortable. Am I a better human being if I have a high-powered career than if I am just a domestic woman, and do nothing beyond caring for my family and volunteering in my community? I think it might be easier for women to feel unity with the women of the world than it is for men to feel unity with the men of the world?

We can hardly control our circumstances. Life contains suffering.
What we can control is our mental states. Do I focus on the bad and spiral into negativity, or do I focus on the good and appreciate all that life has to offer? — Hermeticus

What does life have to offer? Can you think of any conditions that leave a person feeling powerless to achieve happiness?

If only it did. Oh, you meant the other kind of parties. — Ciceronianus

:rofl: I love your reply to James.

I just want everyone to know I have not forgotten this thread. I just ran out of energy before I got to it, but I got my paperwork turned in on time, so my day hasn't been a total loss. I promise I will be here first thing in the morning when my batteries are recharged.

We should always remember: though a woman is more free to abandon her traditional role and seek protections from the state over other human relations, she has the corresponding and growing freedom to do the opposite. The point of it is that the realm of conduct is expanded. It’s better this way because only by free choice can a woman—or anyone—educate herself to this or that desirable end with dignity, by force of her own reason and conscience.

None of this is to say that women should or should not abandon “social responsibility”. I just wouldn’t say a fear of the conditions are really warranted. — NOS4A2

I don't think I could be working any harder to understand what people are saying and make rational replies than if you all were writing in Greek. Once a child is born, a woman is free to do what?

What was a woman's social responsibility? What is a woman's social responsibility today? What is a man's social responsibility? Is there a difference between the man's and the woman's social responsibilities?

You touched upon a lot of issues I cannot answer for. I am not happy with that response but I figure this sort of thing requires being very honest about limitations.

My child has a pretty good understanding of my limitations.He is glad that I helped him understand how that works. A parent cannot ask for much more than that. — Valentinus

Huh? you can't ask for more than your child understanding you? You do not want to know what is going through my head. You appear to be thinking about yourself rather than the child. I really hope I am wrong, but I think this is where there is a male/female difference and where is a problem with valuing the person who cares for the child.

Refering to my reply to

Philosophim — Philosophim

caring for a child is not an opportunity we take for our own gain.

Now I would agree with this sentence too. If society will not respect you, threatens you, and basically ostracizes you from society, I think the blame lays with those who have power in society, not yourself....

True woman's liberation is about equality of opportunity, and respect in the law. We can eliminate the word woman as well, and realize that true liberation in society is about equality of opportunity, and respect in the law. Beware those who would taint liberation with bias, for their intent is often not about liberation, but an agenda. — Philosophim

I love your arguments and you have made it very clear why education in how to think is very important. I believe throughout the whole of society we have a much better society if from the day a child entered school, education was learning how to think. You have demonstrated that how we think can make the difference between being a rational person, or an emotional mess.

I object to your definition of woman's liberation meaning equality of opportunity and respect in the law.
Please refer to my reply to

Valentinus — Athena

Why do you think he needed to clarify he is capable of doing something besides childcare? I could be wrong, but I think he felt a need to do that because we do not value full-time homemakers who enable the husband and children to be all they can be, as though no capable person would settle for that. Really? I think our equality needs to include the value of caring for our families. Inequity as I see it is claiming "what I am doing is important and what you are doing is not".

If you look at India and other Asian countries and the veneration of spiritual leaders and elders, we might have a different understanding of being humans. What do I have to achieve to be valued?

From my experience of being a male primary caretaker in the context of certainly being employable to do something else, it struck me how the kid (in review) had absolutely no preconceptions about what should happen. My efforts were not maternal but it was made clear to me they were welcomed as care.

Children seem designed to make the failings of their parents to come sharply into view. — Valentinus

Perfect! Now that is down the line of what I want to discuss! You do not need to answer this personal question, but why did you feel a need to clarify you are qualified to do something besides care for a child? If raising children is one of the most important things a human being can do, why would it be necessary to clarify you are capable of other things? Does someone want to argue caring for children is not important? Really, are we at peace with the state of fear and anger we are living in now?

How old was the child? I ask because I firmly believe around age 6 the care of a child needs to shift from a female care provider to a male care provider.

This question is very important... Did you and the child bond? If the two you bonded, is the relationship continuing until death do you part? What might happen to the child if all relationships are only temporary? If as soon as a child feels love and security, there is loss and insecurity? Might that be harmful to the child?

I suspect the most terrible thing we have done, next to war and slavery is dismiss how a child feelings by saying "children adjust". Mom and Dad and all substitutions for Mom and Dad can do whatever makes them happy and no one needs to think of the child because the child "will adjust'. The child has "no preconceptions about what should happen". That is probably true because we are not born with preconceptions, I will argue that is what is wrong with a child going through life with temporary relationships. The child is learning who s/he is and what life is about, and if people learn each one of us is out for ourselves with no commitments or obligations to others, what might kind of society will we have?

I think this says everything about why I don't want to go any further in this discussion. If you are not a member of my species, we have nothing to say to each other. — T Clark

Wait a minute I was attempting to introduce some humor to reduce tensions. A whole different subject could be why does talking about the relationships of men and women cause us to go crazy? We need to reach out to each other and if possible dispel the animosity that is a big part of what is going so wrong right now. I find your sensitivity valuable in making me think carefully about how I word myself so it is on topic and not an emotional rant.

Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus: A Practical Guide for Improving Communication and Getting What You Want in Your Relationships – April 23, 1993
by John Gray, was a helpful book and maybe it could still be helpful. There has been such dramatic social and economic changes and everything is spinning out of control because the change is happening without discussion and coming to a consensus. Do we want to institutionalize our children in government-run institutions so all mothers can work outside of the home? How might this affect our experience of being human? How might it be changing society?

I was reluctant to get involved in this discussion. I only did because Athena started it in response to a comment of mine. She seems to have bailed on the discussion, so I will too. — T Clark

No, I did not bail. I was busy, and boy, am I sorry I did not stay on top of the thread! It took a direction that kind of ruins the concept of our changed reality/ consciousness, that I wanted to explore with everyone. And @ john27 expresses wisdom in asking.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand the initial question. Are you asking whether our social responsibility is changing for the better or worse? — john27

Yes, I am asking if the change in a woman's social responsibility is for the better or worse. Now like T Clark, I have my concerns about saying what is on my mind but if I don't, this thread is pointless.

I think the traditional, full-time homemaker is a very important social position and we have destroyed it. I am not sure this is good for society. On the other hand, I think women in the seats of power have done much good. An extremely important factor that complicates the possible arguments is the possibility of women putting family first and when the children are old enough, switching to something outside of the home to fully actualize themselves through a career.

The essence of adulthood is that you don't blame other people for your misfortune. You take responsibility for your own life. People who hold other people to blame are asking to be treated like children. In our society there is a case to be made that certain classes of people are dealt a raw deal in life. As far as I can see, that usually breaks down by race and class, not by sex. Working class people get the shaft. Middle and upper class people have the road paved for them. I include myself and my family in that group.

That's what it comes down to for me. If you want to blame others for difficulties in your life, you are asking to be treated like a child. — T Clark

:lol: I see why you were concerned about expressing your opinion. You did an excellent job of laying the groundwork for discussing touchy subjects. If you had not done that, it would be more difficult for me to be rational. As it is, I realize my intense anger is from the past and it would be irrational for me to unload it here and now but I need to skillfully defend my species. :wink: Times have changed a lot and that really complicates things.

When you speak of blame I wonder does that include a notion of cause and effect?

Some years ago I belonged to a male conservative group that ventured into allowing women to join. At first, there was just me and two other women and everything was cool. Then the men included their wives and OMG could I understand why, in the past, people believed women were incapable of being rational and most assuredly incapable of leading or having much responsibility. I mean not even the responsibility of managing money and paying the bills. These women were probably in their 70's and they had the mentality of children! Do you want to guess at why they were as little girls? Why were their wives different from the next generation of women?

Good morning everyone. How did this thread get so off track? Looks like it could have been my fault. :sad: How about if we talk about our childhood playing? I absolutely loved it when we went to the field and played, before puberty. You know, when it didn't matter if someone was a girl or a boy? We built forts, rode bikes. We left the house in the morning and didn't come back until people began turning their lights on. By the end of summer, I was pretty bored and really glad to return to school.

Suppose God exists. You ask him "why God did you make the world as it is?" He responds "I was just playing."

What's going to be your reaction? [Choices not restricted to one emoji]

1. :rofl:

2. :angry:

3. :cry:

4. :meh:

5. :gasp:

6. :worry:

7. :chin:

8. :brow:

9. :confused:

10. :pray:

11. :roll: — TheMadFool

I choose #1 :rofl:

I love your insight. :heart:

On second thought, there was a time when God tried to wipe us off the face of the earth. That would be angry or disapproving. He is a pretty emotional chap, so maybe He has had all those feelings at one time or another.

I'm man enough to turn over the reigns and step back. It's time for a change, as far as I'm concerned. Good luck. Oh, and please don't do to us what we did to you. Although I can understand it if you do. And one other thing: Keep an eye on the Lauren Boeberts, Marjorie Taylor Greens and Sarah Palins of the world. — James Riley

What of the Native Americans renewing their fight to have treaties respected and where their land can not be returned to have fair compensation for that? What of the Blacks pointing out how housing discrimination has hurt them for generations bleeding into wanting acknowledgement of the wrongs done to them, and White people feeling very threatened by what could be the end of their domination?

TheMadFool — TheMadFool

His post is perfect for this discussion!

We are not dealing with just better technology but a huge shift in consciousness! It is not just the women folk having a stronger voice, but all people who were excluded from the White man's grab for wealth and power. This is not just socialism versus capitalism but justice and morality versus being pretty ignorant and primitive and brute force ruling.

One of the things I value about the forum is that it has taught me to be more patient and not to respond, at least not as often, to provocation.

When we feel safe we can explore our ideas and dare to be different and creative, and under such conditions, we all expand our consciousness.
— Athena

I guess my problem is the opposite of yours. I have never been able to not say things that come to mind, even when I shouldn't.

The US no longer feels safe. Our minds are closing down and people are picking up weapons. We no longer allow our children to be as children but expect them to perform like college students as we rush to teach them what to think.
— Athena

I don't feel this way at all.

We need the spirit of play and for that, we need to feel safe.
— Athena

Yes. — T Clark

I try to ignore provocation but they get to me emotionally and that really ruins everything for me. I don't want to be sexist about this, but maybe there is a male/female difference? I am blown away by what some congresswomen are saying about male predatory behavior. This is not the thread for that debate, but I am amazed by how much things have changed! Women did not have the power they have today and I think this makes a huge difference!

Burned in my mind is what a school teacher said at the 1917 National Education Association Conference about the importance of being personal. Is a woman wrong to think a video about a man killing a woman is NOT funny? Is that taking a joke too personally? I am trying to respond to you and stay on topic but might men and women have a different experience of what is funny and what is not? In the early years of the internet, it was kind of like the wild west. I was constantly told I needed a thicker skin. Eventfully rules were made and the internet forums became more civil. However, we are dealing with the fear of teenagers taking their own lives because of internet activity. Parents are concerned about the internet NOT being a safe place for their children to play.

I don't remember reminding girls to play safely, but oh my goodness those boys! The boys absolutely love hitting things with a stick, pushing, and shoving. Again and again the boys would start out laughing and having a good time and this turned into anger and serious hitting. They thought it was so unfair that I would stop them before things got mean. One could think evolution made boys different from girls? :lol: Good back on topic, do girls and boys play the same?

My hope is with the younger generation and women. Sure, they have their 10%, but generally they are better than what's been the dominant paradigm. — James Riley

Curious, why do you say they are better? I think the old paradigm was more patriarchal and as women gain power we become more matriarchal. That is more focused on feelings and children and the welfare of women. I remember when women did not exist except as extensions of men. Then one day I read a New Woman magazine there was the word "she" where always before there had been only the word "he". I don't know if women have changed, but rather our environment has changed in a huge way!

I am not sure all the consequences of that change will be good? Wanting our children to be as college students and competing against each other for their place is society, may have a very bad effect. Children need an atmosphere of play to explore who they are and have good feelings with their peers which become good feelings about who they are. I am afraid too many children are denied this childhood safety and end up mass murderers or struggling with emotional demons of unworthiness and helplessness?

I'm fine with that.

As a matter of interest, the one thing I do every day that I consider play is participating in the forum. — T Clark

If we are too serious about our arguments, perhaps we need counseling? A few things though really push my buttons and I turn into a crazy person. That is one of the reasons I believe respect is so important! When we are disrespected we can become defensive and feel the urge to attack. Then this is no longer play and it is no longer fun and it ruins threads.

Thankfully, most of the time the forum brings out my inner child, having so much fun learning new things or having a better understanding of what I believe is so. I think we have to feel safe for really good thinking to happen. When we feel safe we can explore our ideas and dare to be different and creative, and under such conditions, we all expand our consciousness.

The US no longer feels safe. Our minds are closing down and people are picking up weapons. We no longer allow our children to be as children but expect them to perform like college students as we rush to teach them what to think. Oh dear, my heart is sad. We need the spirit of play and for that, we need to feel safe. Thankfully, most of the people here are safe to engage with. Philosophy is so important!

I didn't agree with Trump and the republicans on many things when he was in office, but I agreed on their stance that they can't be soft on China about the issues with regarding trade, military posturing, etc. I'm not exactly sure what Biden is doing wrong in regard to China (other than not taking as hard as stance as Trump did). — dclements

In my book, respect is supreme. Especially if you want power because virtues equate strength. The one thing I counted on Biden being is virtuous, but the things that come out of his mouth are horrifying. I wish someone would impress upon him the importance of keeping his mouth shut until he has calmly considered his words.

It is about having power and right now we need every bit of power we can get because China is spinning out of control. As I said war is insanity. I have no memory of China expanding its territory since all of China came under one ruler. Something has triggered China to disrespect the status quo and I think this is a very serious situation. Does anyone know why China has become so aggressive?

Tom Brady loves football, but when he goes out on the field, he's not playing. If you're trying to win, I don't see it as play.

There's no need for us to go into this a lot more if you don't want to. I can see your point. I have my own way of seeing it. The word "play" has room for both our views. — T Clark

:rofl: I was just listening to a professor explaining the American mind. The lecture today was a series of philosophers who brought us to doubt. Don't we love philosophy? :grin:

I love facilitating workshops on healthy living and I don't consider that play either. It is more serious than play. But I think a person has a problem if winning a game of Scrabble is that serious. :lol: I think we can agree maybe there is not a distinct difference that is constant and unchanging? The same activity can be all about fun and can get very serious. I don't mind loosing to someone, but if I am loosing too badly I can get very serious about closing the gap. :lol: On the other hand, while trying to get across the importance of good health habits, if I am not having fun and not being fun, people don't come back. Even when we are being serious, it can be important to be fun. And if you are loosing the game of Scrabble too badly, it is time to get serious. :lol:

These are goal oriented and I don't think of them as play. Maybe that seems nitpicky, but I don't think it is. The distinction is important. On the other hand, both things are wonderful. — T Clark

My goodness, when we play games we often play to win. I would not put the criteria of having no goals on the word "play", but do recognize those goals can ruin the fun if our head is to set on the goal there is no sense of fun. On the other hand, if we join a work party, there is a goal to accomplish something, but it doesn't feel like work if we are having fun. Wow, I am thinking hard on this and checking with how the different ideas make me feel. Does the idea feel right or wrong? I realize how many things I have stopped doing something because it is not fun. So for me, it is not if we want to win, or if have a goal, but how much fun we are having. If it isn't fun, I walk away, unless I am paid. Work is what I do for pay. :lol:

I just wish to add that play may be an essential aspect of the creative process, because it involves both imagination and experimentation. It may be too harsh when people lose the ability to play in preference for work and grim aspects of reality. A certain amount of playfulness may be important for human meaning and, even fun, rather than misery and play may be important in the ability to see humour and, prevent seeing life in it most tragic form. Play may be important in philosophy in order to put ideas together creatively and to bring forth ideas in new ways. — Jack Cummins

Speaking of creativity is perfect! Much of our childhoods are spent creatively and imagining being adults. We play house and may play grocery store, or back in the day, it was cowboys and Indians modeling the TV shows we saw at the time.

I cheated and looked for an online definition of play.

Encyclopedia of Children's Health.
Image result for what is play?
Play is the work of children. It consists of those activities performed for self-amusement that have behavioral, social, and psychomotor rewards. It is child-directed, and the rewards come from within the individual child; it is enjoyable and spontaneous.

My inner child is alive and well. :razz:

Everything you say is true, except the things you identify are not play. They're something else, something good, but not play. — T Clark

What? How about trips to fun places such as the annual Steam Engine event where there is an old sawmill run on steam and many other old steam engines. I love going there! It is so exciting to me. Or going to an archeological dig, or exploring caves? I guess I am luckier than many folks as these things, including our local university library and the art museum enliven my inner child with delight. It is hard to imagine how anyone could have that feeling and distinguish it as different from play. Now I am really confused! If the joy I feel is not play, then what is play?

I think both work and play can be executed in the moment, and both can be considered, before and after the fact, as goal-directed or otherwise. The question is, can the consideration itself be work and/or play in the moment? I suppose thinking about the past or the future, considering the past of the future, could itself be work or play in moment. Hmmm. I'd need to rethink some of my thoughts. :lol: — James Riley

Yeah! Absolutely! The democratic model for industry takes the social and accomplishment needs of the employees into consideration. We modeled our industry after England's autocracy back in the day when people were treated worse than animals. So many bad things are happening now, but maybe so many good things are happening? The need to treat people better is certainly in the news.

Perhaps, if work is goal-directed activity, play is non-goal directed activity. Any good? — bert1

Excuse me, but I love work parties. You know, where everyone shows up to accomplish a goal, building a barn, or stuffing envelopes, or feeding over 100 people a Thanksgiving dinner. I also don't understand why being happy and working together is not the goal even when we are paid to do something. There isn't enough money in the world to pay for many of the jobs people do, so an employer needs to think of other ways to make the job enjoyable. Because they do not, I have volunteered most of my life instead of working for money.

I remember being isolated at home with my children and I could hardly wait for them to get in school so I could have a job with other adults and accomplish something in the adult world. I was horrified by how horrible many employers are. I am rather enjoying this moment in time when employers are struggling to get employees. Might they discover considering the happiness of the employees is a good policy?

This is a topic I'd like to hear a broad response to in whatever way tickles anyone's fancy.

I think play is something that we are generally taught to vie was 'childish' yet in maturity and adult development I believe recapturing our ability to play is of deadly importance - for cognitive development in general.

What theories of play interest you and what exactly is it that you are talking about when you think about 'play'? Also, what is a 'best' way to play? — I like sushi

What a wonderful topic. I love playing Scrabble. It was my school teacher grandmother who taught me to play the game. Winning is not my priority, because for me, playing Scrabble is about enjoying time with a child or a friend. There are many challenges besides winning, and one of them can be helping the other person to win as long as that is not too obvious. Or people can work together to cover all the red triple the word score squares. That is very hard to do.

I played Scrabble with a man who had dementia and my challenge was to give him plenty of places to make 4 letter words and then it was plenty of places to make 2 letter words as his dementia advanced. I hope you can see the joy we had in accomplishing using up all the tiles. We did not keep score for obvious reasons. It was about being friends and meeting our own challenges, not winning. :smile:

I love the arguments that China and the US will not start a war that could possibly destroy the world but I am afraid wars are a form of insanity and we are headed into that insanity. I am so angry with Biden for being disrespectful and pushing the wrong buttons. Evidently, he thinks this is appealing to US citizens? But saving face is of supreme importance to China and Japan, being disrespectful is pushing the wrong buttons. The nation will not tolerate it.

On the other hand, it is the historical commitment of the US to defend small countries and international law. That is just as important to the identity of the US, as saving face is important to China, and China's determination to swallow up smaller countries pushes the US war buttons.

From the book of the 1917 National Education Association Conference in Portland, Oregon

The speaker is Charles R. Van Hise, President of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin

"This world war cannot cease; it must not cease until Germany shall recognize that the laws of nations must be obeyed, that the conquest of small and weak nations is wrong. It is to establish these great principles that we entered the war. In order to establish these great principles that we entered the war. In order to establish that they may be maintained, all the sacrifices which are necessary must be made by this nation. If the fundamental principles of freedom and democracy call for the death of hundreds of thousands of our young men, the sacrifice must be made." — Charles R. Van Hise

I personally do not know the answer to your question but I googled for information and maybe you will find the information you want here....
https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is+required+for+a+degree+in+philosophy&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS926US926&oq=what+is+required+for+a+degree+in+philosophy&aqs=chrome..69i57j0i22i30j0i390l2.12282j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

No they don't. You won't find an expert that will tell you an unvaccinated person is more contagious than a vaccinated one, nor will you find one that tells you a vaccine is more effective than natural immunity. — Tzeentch

"An unvaccinated person is at greater risk of becoming a host to the virus and being contagious than a vaccinated person." Is a true statement.

" an unvaccinated person is more contagious than a vaccinated one" is not a true statement because the unvaccinated person may not be infected.

Your untrue statement does not make the true statement untrue.

Okay, you are saying our intellectual climate will change? I don't know if it would be a good thing to give up national identity? It seems national identity is a strong part of individual identity. Also, a lack of national identity plays into the problem of painting with the big brush?

If the US had gone to war with a nation instead of with terrorism. The enemy would have a better definition with limits. Now that you have made me aware of painting with the big brush, I can see the capitalist war with communism as painting with a very big brush. The concept of people on the right and people on the left, conservatives and liberals, are all painting with a very large brush that is divisive.

I never liked labeling. The imagined religious differences are divisive and lead to insane behavior such as war and in the US this is very much a part of the culture war.

Thomas Jefferson thought education was central to a strong republic. Education for citizenship is education for nationalism, as it defines a culture and prepares the young to be part of that culture. However, it was a culture of principles and virtues. The world can be united with principles and virtues when that is the focus and intent of education. Whoops, I feel like I just stepped off a cliff and what I said is unsupported. except for Cicero and the concept of right reasoning. Oh my, philosophy is so important! Without high-order thinking skills we have no way of judging if we have right reasoning or not.

How can a war on terrorism and hate speech be good reasoning? What are the desired virtues and principles? Can we better prepare our intellectual climate for better reasoning?

This thread is completely out of control and useless as a discussion about how civilizations are created and destroyed. If I could I would delete the whole thread and try again to start a discussion of how civilizations are created and destroyed.

Completely untrue, which is why this argument has long since been abandoned and replaced for the "unvaccinated put more pressure on health services"-argument, which seems to be just as baseless, since in my country about 80% of the people on the IC are vaccinated, in a country where about 80% of the people are vaccinated (Implying there is little to no correlation). — Tzeentch

Let us look at why that is untrue.

2. The delta variant broke through the vaccine's waning protection.

It was a perfect storm: The vaccine's waning protection came around the same time the more infectious delta variant arrived in Israel this summer. Delta accounts for nearly all infections in Israel today. — DANIEL ESTRIN

We are back to step one. Wear masks and keep distance and social isolation. It is hoped a third shot will get the desired result of making people immune to the virus and its variants. Understanding this should result in people doubling the effort to stop the virus and the risk of new variants and making the virus endemic. That is by now we should realize how important it is to do what we can to stop the spread the virus. This is not a good time to ignore science and give up.

:100: — James Riley

Thank you James, I am reminded of the Native Americans who were decimated by disease.

Tribes with a leadership that kept them separated from those who spread the disease, survived and those that were friendly with the European's spreading the disease were completely wiped out. A civilization depends very much on leaders making good decisions.

Hitler was able to take control of Germany because Germany had reactionary politics as the US has today. I think the same things that gave Hitler power are what gives Trump power, and that we have already lost the democracy we defended in two world wars. This is about education and culture.

Does anyone here know Weber's explanation of leadership?

Completely untrue, which is why this argument has long since been abandoned and replaced for the "unvaccinated put more pressure on health services"-argument, which seems to be just as baseless, since in my country about 80% of the people on the IC are vaccinated, in a country where about 80% of the people are vaccinated (Implying there is little to no correlation). — Tzeentch

Please take your arguments about covid to the thread for those arguments and stop derailing this one. This one is about how civilizations are created and destroyed.

I think you'll have to try that again and don't mention vaccination. — frank

Geeze, I think you are right. But maybe we can salvage this thread? Before our democracy, kings had absolute power and people believed a God gave them that power. How did these monarchies begin?

What makes a democracy different? Hint, the answer is science and a different way of deciding who has authority that is based on reason.

An unvaccinated person isn't really more infectious than a vaccinated person. In fact, natural immunity is more effective and effective longer than a vaccine. — Tzeentch

An unvaccinated person is more likely to spread the disease than a vaccinated one. There is absolutely no other reason for the government supporting the effort to stop the spread of the virus.

Thinking the government has any other goal than stopping the spread of the virus is a mental disease.

The right of autonomy over one's own body is not a priviledge, it is a human right.
— Tzeentch — James Riley

Yes, and if you are not vaccinated please stay home so I have the liberty of living without fear of a disease. Our goal is to stop the spread of a deadly disease and if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

Human rights are the bottomline to which we hold states, and indeed all that seperates us from chimpanzees - the sole achievement of mankind over its animal nature over the course of thousands of years. — Tzeentch

It is not a human right to spread disease. When the disease was tuberculosis we separated infected people from the larger society. Typhoid Mary was not allowed to work in kitchens when it was realized she carried the disease. Such decisions are based on science and the protection of the whole of society. Without social efforts to protect everyone. we are unprotected and that is not right. Not when we know the science and can stop pandemics!

Let us be very clear about this. Liberty is not the freedom to do anything we want and to hell with everyone else. Liberty is understanding the law, and in this case, it is law made known through science. Those who refuse to live by the law of science to stop the spread of disease, need to be separated from the rest of the population. They don't have to be vaccinated, they just have to avoid contact with the rest of us. The people who are willing to follow the science can then have liberty. That reasoning is what separates us from the apes.

I don't believe the government is using vax's to 'control' people but it is fairly clear that we're talking about freedoms and we've seen creeping laws against 'terrorism,' 'hate speech' and such that have not exactly instilled people with confidence. — I like sushi

Now that is something to talk about. I think Bush really overstepped when he began a war on terrorism. That is to board and I really do not like the way it has been applied to domestic problems. I am pondering what you have said, and the notion of hate speech, and I don't want to sound weird but could it be said we are manifesting the anti-christ with the concepts of terrorism and hate speech? Sorry, but I am coming from the thread about nothing and it looks to me we are creating a problem that did not exist by creating concepts of evil and acting as though these evils are tangible and we need laws to protect us from them, as in the past people worried about protected from Satan. Could a less abstract vocabulary set limits that support our sense of liberty, instead of threaten our sense of liberty?

I agree that the most that can be done is to challenge what is written about God. As the thread discussion suggests, proving or disproving God is 'difficult' and I would go further and say it is impossible. As you suggest, no holy book can give us an explanation of the underlying laws of nature. I also wonder what is meant by 'nothing' because it does not appear to us but, perhaps, there is more to 'nothing' than what it appears because as it cannot be observed it may be hard to know how or in what way to describe it, and, perhaps, it is something rather than nothing. — Jack Cummins

Nothing is what is outside of the universe?

But unless we revert to pre-capitalist or pre-industrial conditions, and seeing that socialism or communism is not an option, I think we are stuck with capitalism - until someone comes up with a better idea. :smile: — Apollodorus

You thoughts might go well in the new thread about Creating and Destroying a Civilization.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/12077/creating-and-destroying-a-civilization.

I don't think there can not be capitalism before industrialization.

Tribes work together to feed everyone. Often the effort to feed everyone is tied to mythology implying some form of supernatural power must be appeased with taboos against putting self-interest first. I have heard Russia's communism is an imitation of Native American organization of people caring for each other.

In my younger years, I never imagined it would be so hard to have strong families and therefore a strong nation. Confucius was adamant about strong families being essential to a strong nation.