The 1% is an organizing principle for political agitation, and a scapegoat for those who lament poverty, or who resent wealth for a variety of reasons. These resentments find root in the fallacious belief that all of economics is 'zero-sum'; that those who have accumulated wealth have necessarily obtained it by confiscation. The whole social movement draws on a wider set of Marxist propositions that have been remarkably persistent over time. — geospiza

It is a fact that there are wide disparities in outcomes of wealth/income. It doesn't follow from this that some groups have been victimized by others. In most cases the best explanation is that some people have simply outproduced others. There is nothing morally superior about those who accumulate wealth, just as there is nothing morally superior about those who don't.

Ah yes the good 'ol 'look around you' standard of proof. Trash. — StreetlightX

Fool #2

Yes: no evidence, historical or otherwise.

Just a childish assertion, as if "profit" is essential in human behavior. In fact it ignores the the core thrust of philosophy, the sciences, and the arts. Not to mention family, friendship, and community. I suppose in your eyes, all this operates on the basis of the "profit incentive."

What a pathological, nihilistic view of the w — Xtrix

Don't be a fool. There's evidence all around you of people being motivated to production by profit. Your inability to admit it is an obvious sign of a deeper ideological agenda.

Well gee Biden being a cynical shit of a politician with zero principles wow what a surprise. Butt's reward for dropping out early I guess. Also an early grooming maneuver - teach the inexperienced little suckup the ways of neoliberal capitalist dominance then play him for pres again a few years down the line, future-proof corporate dominance for decades to come. — StreetlightX

There is a strange dialectic there for sure. Not unlike his choice of VP who previously called him out as a segregationist sympathizer. Or when he himself was chosen as a running mate after describing Obama as "the first mainstream African-American [candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy". Maybe they choose people who they think will make up for something they themselves are lacking.

So, I would like people to respond to this post about particular disagreements they have.
Saying what they think is the mistake that is being made by the people they disagree with. — tinman917

I disagree with utopian visions. The mistake is in thinking that human beings are perfectible.

Says every capitalist apologist in history. No evidence whatsoever, historical or otherwise, but nice to see you can repeat slogans. — Xtrix

No evidence? :rofl:

"ill-gotten"? That depends on what you mean. Stop talking in the clouds and be specific. Is it right or wrong for companies to use tax havens and code loopholes to avoid paying taxes? It depends. You might argue it's perfectly legal and within the rules of the game. Is it right to automate jobs or outsource them to make more money? You could argue that's perfectly "natural," given that maximizing profit and market share is a core feature of our economic system.

So yes, assuming the game we're playing is legitiamte, the 1% perhaps haven't attained their extreme wealth in an "ill-gotten" way -- no murder, no rape, no (legal) theft, etc. But that's quite an assumption, which most people (including you) fail to even question. If the game itself is a sick one, and furthermore tilted in many ways... — Xtrix

Give your head a shake, Xanax. Take away the profit incentive and you get stagnation. By maintaining modest corporate and personal tax rates there is less incentive to lower production or to export earnings. Stop the obsession with tax rates, and focus instead on overall tax revenues. Realize that there is a point at which higher marginal tax rates for the wealthiest income earners will negatively correlate with total tax revenue.

The top 1% did not make the rest of us poor. Poverty is the default condition.

One does not have to believe that all of economics is zero-sum in order to believe that theft is possible, nor that other forms of illegitimate transfers of wealth (if those somehow don't count as theft) are possible. — Pfhorrest

Of course theft happens. My point is that just because a small group of people attain extreme wealth does not imply that it was ill-gotten.

It's not just physicists straying into philosophy. It's also religionists straying into biology, psychologists straying into legal analysis, and politicians straying into just about everything. You name it, and someone is straying into it.

The 1% is an organizing principle for political agitation, and a scapegoat for those who lament poverty, or who resent wealth for a variety of reasons. These resentments find root in the fallacious belief that all of economics is 'zero-sum'; that those who have accumulated wealth have necessarily obtained it by confiscation. The whole social movement draws on a wider set of Marxist propositions that have been remarkably persistent over time.

I view it as a religious question. Evocative of gratitude.

Which one of these two men do you think brought the best and most honest message? — Beebert

Best? Too vague.

Jesus is the more passionate, but Gautama is the cooler customer.

Most honest?

According to the Gospels, Jesus was sometimes quite evasive (such as whether or not he was King of the Jews), but he was honest in the sense that he could not be intimidated easily.

There is an honesty in both of them having renounced a lot of the things that tend to corrupt people (e.g. wealth).

I think it is the fault of the married couple, the amount of money people spend on weddings these days makes one really think that people have normalised insanity. There is a delusional objective having this 'fairytale' wedding that rehearse an imagined portrayal of their love and I personally would DIY everything for more a small, intimate backyard wedding that would cost less entirely than the amount people spend just on photography. Wedding photographers themselves set the stage for these superficial poses because the photos look expensive, they appear worth spending the money on and the appearance of this 'quality' transcends the stuff one can take independently. And as the setting and environment helps with the opportunity to be creative, it provides little legroom for photographers to move beyond that.

I did the photography for a friend' wedding alongside a professional photographer and my photos naturally showcased the actual experience, the closeness and you could feel the love and emotion through them. You can still have great artistic photos that are not "statements". — TimeLine

Your photos are very lovely and they are indeed more naturally appealing. I think there has been somewhat of a backlash that has emerged in response to some of the things you mention, with more people deliberately choosing to simplify. However, there remains a large segment of the population for whom their wedding must be a big production. I suppose there are many possible reasons for this. One reason is that people simply have enormous egos. Others have expensive tastes and they choose to indulge (whether they can afford it or not). Another reason might be that there is often a lot of pressure from the wedding industry to upgrade and include every cost imaginable. Couples are made to feel inadequate if they don't go along with the spending. Yet another reason is that if your peers are spending a fortune, it is only natural for a couple to feel an expectation to do the same. You have to be strong willed to resist all of the pressures to organize a high cost wedding.

All of this is unfortunate, in my view, because all of the high production distracts from the seriousness of what is actually going on, and can ruin it with superficiality. In some ways maybe it is an honest reflection of the naivety with which couples typically enter into marriage. What really needs to be asked is, if you were to take away all of the glamour and all of the spectacle, would there be anything left?

I just chose that photo because I liked it. I hadn't a clue what region it was native to. — Sapientia

That's normal; I am just a biogeography nerd.

This is too good a topic not to create a spinoff post.

Fairytale Photos

There are several different phenomena that I have noticed.

There is the above-mentioned "firing squad":



There is also what I call the "Downton Abbey":



There is also the "Artistic Statement":



And of course the ubiquitous "Heart Hands":



This is only the tip of the iceberg.

I can spot my posts quickly in a fast scroll through a long discussion. — noAxioms

That's good thinking and come to think of it that's the entire purpose of an avatar, which I now realize I completely overlooked when choosing my own. :s

My avatar is Max Ernst with a dog on his shoulder against a blue sky with fluffy clouds. I happen to like Max Ernst's art, but really I just like the photograph. It's striking and amusingly odd. I don't like images that exist primarily to convey an external meaning. — jamalrob

It is an interesting portrait. Part of what is odd about the photograph is that it was seemingly taken at a high aperture so that the distant clouds appear to be at the same depth as the subject.

I dislike photos that are overcomposed. Lots of wedding and family photos are like this. Is that the same thing as conveying an external meaning?

It has gone completely off the rails. Biology is the place where the theory of evolution is at home.

TLP Wittgenstein or PI Wittgenstein?

So despite your attempt at an open marriage, you have a monogamous one. That's life right there for you. If you're still holding hands, that's a very good sign :)

Mine is self explanatory... I'm a fanatical follower of St. Ludwig. — Fafner

What is it like to be a disciple of Wittgenstein?

Barred Owl (Strix varia). Why did you choose a North American species and not something native to your home region?

So geopisa, why didn't you explain yours? You started this...

Mine represents my history. I was educated in a Calvinist school and was taught good science. Then the church (mine included, but perhaps not the school) seemed to declare science some sort of adversary. When forced to choose between science and dogma, it's science that's going to win.
Anybody recognize it? Clues are all there. — noAxioms

I think I can detect the source of your illustration being from Calvin and Hobbes, and it appears to be an object in flight. Maybe it is a figurative expression that you threw away Calvinism?

My avatar is an illustration of the American Flamingo by J.J. Audubon from his masterpiece, the Birds of America. It is significant to me for a variety of reasons, but basically what it boils down to is that I am an avid birdwatcher.

I did not personally attack you - go back and read it again. It seems to me that you have no clue what you're talking about and you get very easily offended - that's not my fault now. — Agustino

Easily offended? Yes, you do seem to find it easy to offend people.

For what it is worth, I wish you would not view your 'confession' as a mistake because I can appreciate your fantasy as well. There is nothing wrong with your fantasy. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

It was a mistake to admit it to what's-his-face because he just turned around and used it to personally attack me. Anyhoo, it's just a fantasy, not an ambition.

I've been told that a common women's fantasy is the opposite: to have the singular devotion and attention of one man they admire. If that's true, how can we account for these conflicting fantasies in a relationship?

Yes, because saying that is just a subtle form of coercion. — TimeLine

How warped and cynical.

Reminds me of the following quote:

Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.
— Margaret Atwood — TimeLine

Ah yes, Canadian treasure Margaret Atwood. I used to know her step son, Graeme Gibson Jr. He formerly ran a bird ringing station on Pelee Island. Not sure what he's doing now.

Insecure men are afraid of women's laughter. Confident men are not bothered by it.

A man should never seek to physically intimidate a woman (except maybe in an emergency).

Should I change my handle from "bitter crank" to something else? What would you suggest. — Bitter Crank

You should only change your name to accompany a strategic change in your persona and target audience. Marketing. Otherwise stick with what you've got.

There are non-latex condoms. — Bitter Crank

My understanding is that non-latex condoms are not an effective barrier to disease. I think the proposed legislation specifically mandated latex condom use.

I would have sworn that was Frank Lloyd Wright art deco. I have definitely seen it before. I too like the aesthetic of it. Very orderly.

What question were you asked that prompted you to admit to possible bias?

So why do we chide Bill Clinton, yet praise Heraclitus, Spinoza, Frege and Russell? — Reformed Nihilist

We chide/mock/ridicule Clinton in part because his remarks were made in the context of his back-peddling from denials he had earlier made about his relationship with a young White House intern. His statements were entirely self-serving.

Philosophy, at its best, has entirely different motivations and objectives.

who wasn't willing to help you overcome your moral defects and become a better human being — Agustino

People don't generally begin a romantic relationship with the primary purpose of helping to cure the other person's imperfections. More often it just comes with the territory. There is also a measure of acceptance that is normally required by both parties to sustain any long term relationship.

What do you mean avoid attribution? You yourself said it. And I absolutely do think you need to be educated if you think that hiding your fantasies about other people from your partner is a "white lie". It's absolutely not a white lie. — Agustino

You need to give your head a shake. I confessed to a fantasy. I see now that it was a mistake to let my guard down. I made no such admission to telling the "white lie". I said only that there might be good reason to withhold disclosure of one's fantasies from others in some circumstances.

The experience of a genuinely loving relationship where I am respected and admired and likewise that I respect and admire my partner elongates that pleasurable sensation beyond the bedroom, and it establishes meaning to our existence in a mutually shared capacity that in doing so motivates us to become better people. It is not only casual sex that I have a problem with; many couples - including those that are married - are in it for convenience, dependence or tradition rather than for love and so it is an empty bind that results in the same meaninglessness as casual sex and one will never find themselves feeling pleasure neither ever progressing. But unlike, say, masturbation (which I don't think is immoral but without pornography, but please let's not get into that), there are a number of practical concerns that render casual sex problematic, the epidemiological is clear for one. The problem can thus also become practical ethics as well as morality. — TimeLine

I hope I am not crossing the line by suggesting that you have a woman's perspective. That perspective is certainly welcomed by me!

Is a bar the place where you would expect to find your soulmate? Notwithstanding that you might find your soulmate there, what kind of expectations would you have about finding Mr. Right in that setting?

If I understand your position, it is that overtures by a man seeking casual sex from a woman is morally wrong. I would like to point out that these overtures are not always to be taken at face value. They are sometimes simply a method of "breaking the ice". The default dynamic between men and women of reproductive age is that men are seeking sex, and women are understandably suspicious. That dynamic can be a very formidable barrier to any communication at all. One way that I have observed will sometimes diffuse that situation is for a man to act out what the woman is afraid he is seeking, and to permit the woman to say "no" and to have that rejection accepted. Sophisticated people know that the overture is half-serious as is the rejection. After that, the chances of a more meaningful interaction are sometimes more likely, and could actually lead to sex (casual or otherwise).

Isn't there something to be said about lightening up a little?

It's better to be honest if you have that fantasy, and discuss it openly, and work through it with your beloved rather than hide it from her through your "white lie" — Agustino

Perhaps. I urge you to try it and report back on your experience.

Also, I don't need to be "educated" by you, so please avoid attribution of either the "white lie" or the "full disclosure" to me personally.

Well that's certainly not my fantasy. Do you think I'm lying to you? And no if you were to say that to your exclusive partner it wouldn't be just a white lie, it would be quite problematic because you're being dishonest about your intentions and how you feel about her. And that's actually very serious, you will never be capable to have an intimate relationship with someone if you'll keep up this dishonest behaviour. — Agustino

Good for you if it's not your fantasy. I now know that you can be counted on to seize the opportunity to allocate blame in response to an honest admission. That speaks to your character. I don't think you are lying, but I do think you present an unrealistic portrait of marriage or any long term committed relationship.

Here is a guy who has ruined himself, and has deprived himself of the goodness of marriage - a guy who by his own admission would fail in marriage because he has filled his mind and soul with vicious habits that would stop him from benefiting from marriage. To envy this guy, is like envying the miser who has deprived himself of friendship to acquire gold.

Here's a guy who, because he can't reach to the grapes anymore, says they're sour, and wants everyone else to forgo the grapes because he has done so. — Agustino

I envy him because it is a nearly ubiquitous male fantasy to have an endless stream of desirable sex partners. The only good reason I can think of to deny it would be to protect the feelings of an exclusive partner (i.e. a white lie). You're not my exclusive partner, so I'm not going to lie to you.

As far as I can tell, Vagabond is reaching more grapes than all of us put together. He has been quite honest in his disclosure that some have been sour and others sweet. I must admit, I can't really relate to his experiences nor do I prioritize my values in the same way as he does, but I don't judge him for that. Perhaps he does glorify a promiscuous lifestyle, but I don't think he is deliberately discouraging others from pursuing the type of committed and emotionally fulsome sexual relationship that you propose to be the be-all and end-all.

If you crashed you car, would you regret having driven that day? Probably. Would you never drive again? Would you say driving is immoral? — VagabondSpectre

Depending on the circumstances, I might modify my driving technique. I don't know you and I'm not judging you, but don't most people eventually move beyond the "hook up" phase of young adulthood (and with good reason)? I mean part of me is definitely jealous of all the sex you are evidently enjoying. Another part of me thinks you should enjoy it while you can (because it won't last forever). And one teeny tiny part of me wonders if you might be screwing up your chances for having a life-long partner (assuming that is something you will eventually want).

I mean that I've had sex with them, they liked it, and came back for more (and I them).

Do you honestly think that I'm devaluing the person-hood of someone by describing them as a "sexually satisfied customer"?

The "satisfied" part actually indicates that I do treat them as if they are a person.

You've tacitly blamed me for the prevalence of rape, the promiscuous sexuality of women in western culture, and now you're expecting me to somehow answer for my grave insult of referring to sexual partners as "satisfied and unoffended customers" as if you've got a moral hatchet raised above my head.... — VagabondSpectre

Okay, so now the ten thousand dollar question. This transactional sex that you and your partners engage in - does it ever lead to regret?

Without final cause we cannot explain the wholes that are formed by the parts, and so these teleological explanations are absolutely necessary. — Agustino

Even if we assume there is a singular final cause of everything, without the intermediate causes we cannot bridge the divide and in any event a proximate cause is often adequate for our purposes without probing any further.

What do you mean? Yes there is trial and error in nature. But there is also established procedure. — Agustino

I mean natural selection, of course. What do you mean?

This doesn't mean anything. The mere fact that it's working so well is awe-inspiring. The fact that it gets better, adapts itself, and improves itself - the fact that it can do that in the first place is also awe-inspiring. — Agustino

Positively awe-inspiring, I agree. Even developmental biology is incredible to the point of amazement. How can a single celled ovum fuse with a single celled spermatozoon and develop into a fully developed mammal? It's crazy! All of the instructions are built right in! All you have to do is add a little bit of nutrients and voila!