Anything could happen! — Vera Mont
Humiliation does not cure hatred. — Vera Mont
You're pointing to a weak foundation that prudence would dictate protecting so that the entire structure won't fall. The problem is that the foundation is weak because there are those who see no advantage in supporting it because it doesn't promote their interests. — Hanover
It's the extreme violence towards people who are not in your tribe/faith which is so shocking! — universeness
When things get as bad as described below, (Warning: only read the extract below from the article, if you want to read about another example of how savage the 'them' and 'us' mentality can manifest) can philosophers or democratic socialists or atheists or scientists, find a permanent solution to such human atrocity, committed on other humans? No god seems able to. So we only have the revulsion felt by all decent humanity, as our motivation to prevent the horrors described in the article and specifically in the extract below. — universeness
This is just one more example of how a highly vocal minority can generate a big issue out of narrow personal interests. — BC
This seems like it describe the whole world right now. I feel like we're in Europe in 1914 just waiting for the pistol shot. — T Clark
Why not have a referendum on the issue? Do those who would have the right to vote in such, know enough about it? Would the current Indian authorities, allow the people to be fully informed of both sides of the debate, and allow enough time for people to discuss the issues involved, and make an informed choice? Referenda can be a fantastic democratic tool, but only if the voters involved cannot be easily fooled or manipulated. If that is not the case, then referenda can do more damage than good. — universeness
There it is in a nutshell: if the opposition wouldn't have came up with this smug way to portray them as INDIA, would this discussion take place. It's all and everything about this. It's just to make less petty and give it more meaning to the discussion. — ssu
I, like BC, have no personal or political stake in this matter.
There are a few Indian people in my town, most young - in their 30s. When I asked them their thoughts about the renaming of Mumbai, they laughed and told me the people they know still call it "Bombay." Is there a generational or ethnic split between those who want to change the name and those who don't. Do some regions or ethnic groups feel more at home in India than others? — T Clark
So, I don't have a stake -- zero investment -- in what India or Bharat calls itself. But we will all have difficulty finding names for ourselves that are entirely founded on whichever native land we are from. "America" derives from the name of an Italian explorer, Amerigo Vespucci, who otherwise had very little to do with the matter.
"Asia" is a name derived from Greek, or maybe Assyrian, meaning "east of".
My point is that language and maps and usage are this huge accumulation of past events and persons that were mostly not rationally organized. They just happened.
Yes, we could spend the rest of our civilization's life straightening all this out. If we do, our civilization's life will be shorter because there are all these other -- far more urgent -- things that we should have attended to and didn't. — BC
As time moves on and we learn more, we often change how we refer to people and places. We used to refer to people and nations in stereotypical ways that most of us choose not to use anymore. I am sure you would not accept, all us Scots, being called mean and tight with money for example.
India has already changed many of its City names from the names imposed by imperialist Britain.
In Russia, Stalingrad and Leningrad are gone. Many countries changed their name after becoming independent by casing off their imperialist conquerors. Is India trying to do something similar here? or is this just Modi's attempt to get a little closer to his real wish, which I think it to re-name the place Hindustan.
Do you think my suspicion of Mr Modi's real agenda here is far fetched Existential Hope? — universeness
So existential is considering both the positive and negative as the moral points, while shopenhauer1 is only considering the negative as the moral obligation points to consider. Does that sound about right?
It might just be a conceptualization difference. "Positive" and "Negative" are really relative terms. schopenhauer, couldn't the view point that you're noting is really about making life less negative overall? Which doesn't that translate into the relative idea that you're making life more positive overall? Someone being happy is a less negative experience then not feeling anything at all right? The point is I don't think its possible to compare negative without positive, as negative needs what is positive as a relative comparison. Vice versa naturally.
As for doing this comparison ourselves about having kids, that's extremely difficult. Should Steven Hawking never have been born if science had predicted he would have ALS in the womb and that's all we knew? Deciding to have or not have a kid based on known negatives of the kids life in the future runs parallel to abortion, and that debate is not likely to be settled anytime soon. That's why I think its more important that the person willing to have a child goes in with trying their best, while those who aren't interested should pass on having a kid. — Philosophim
Oddly, this is just bolstering the AN point. This is how it works when someone is born (they just live their life without your negative interference). However, from the future conditional perspective, you are not going to start negatives for another. It is not letting known harms occur (that could have). — schopenhauer1
But we are not talking about unmitigated good are we. Perhaps if a paradise only universe existed and guaranteed you might have some argument. So hey, at least I'm giving you that point! But alas, we know this world is not that. But I'd even argue, EVEN in that scenario, though it is perfectly permissible to go ahead and start that life, not starting it isn't unethical. As you admit, not starting something does nothing for no one. Nothingness doesn't "hurt" anyone. — schopenhauer1
Getting someone a traditional gift, and handing someone a box of gifts with tremendous burdens are two very different things, and to equivocate the two is rhetorical obfuscation. — schopenhauer1
Only totalitarian regimes would force people into opportunities and post-facto justify it. It is totalitarian thinking to think that one forces another's hand in the name of "opportunities" and then say, "Well, let's get the suicide machines out" as a consolation prize. Cringey. — schopenhauer1
That capacity exists as a real state of affairs. Again, that is what we mean by "future conditionals". It's not inconsistent to understand how future conditionals work. You are denying a whole range of states of affairs don't exist. — schopenhauer1
That's the point. Don't bring about X so Y doesn't happen. Cause and effect. Future conditional. If this, then that could happen. Don't do this. — schopenhauer1
You are confusing how epistemology works. Future conditionals are only understood by someone who exists to know "If then statements". It is from the POV of someone who can comprehend "If then statements" that we know this to be true. — schopenhauer1