This was actually suicide, and it has been misreported. — VagabondSpectre

It was euthanasia, not suicide. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/9221159/depressed-girl-17-dies-at-euthanasia-clinic-in-holland-after-suffering-unbearable-pain-since-childhood-rape/

The unfairness is that boys can just tie it in a knot and wait until they get home, but girls have to go right away. For that reason. I think girls should get to go wherever they want.

George III was crazy, not II. Close. So fucking close.

"Georgian English" suggests the aristocratic langauge of royalty, and I'm not sure I'm deserving of that. I do think George II was a nut job, though, so maybe that's what you meant. I could be wrong though. My English history is a bit weak which should come as no surprise.

You do realize that "fuck" is not swearing. Nor is "fuck" cursing. Nor is "fuck" profane.

"Fuck" is vulgar.

And we both know that being vulgar means being "of the people"...sorta like the Vulgate version of the Bible. — Frank Apisa

"Fuck" is vulgar and it is profane because that's what vulgar means right now, regardless of how the ancient Romans spoke.

Rather, I wonder if there is any agreement that honesty in public life should be enforceable in principle in somewhat the same way that it is in business? If my new gizmo doesn't do what it says on the tin, I am entitled to my money back; perhaps I could sue if my taxes are misspent? — unenlightened

Even assuming the analogy apt (i.e. that it is as much fraud for a gizmo seller to sell an ineffective gizmo to you as it is for a politician to obtain your vote under false promises), I'd still disagree with the proposition that both should be afforded the same remedies in court because I do not see the purpose of law as seeking logical consistency. That different classes of people are treated differently in order to advance particular state interests seems reasonable to me. If we choose, for example, to give emergency room physicians greater protection against negligence suits than we do other physicians (as some states do) seems reasonable if the purpose is to reduce emergency room costs and assure the public there will be plenty of emergency care when needed. Logically, though, an ER doctor is just another gizmo maker.

The question then is why can't we sue every politician who secures votes saying he will not vote for X the minute he votes for X if he is just another gizmo producer? My response would be the same as above, which is that the societal effect would be more damaging than allowing the current state of affairs to continue forward. What would happen is that the passage of legislation would cease taking place in the legislative building, but it would move to the courthouse, where every empowered citizen would file endless lawsuits trying to advance their interests before judges and juries.

As an aside, I also am not particularly troubled by the current state of distrust in government and the lying that now occurs except to the extent the acts of politicians amount to actual violations of law. That is, I don't see us at a nadir where we now need to reconsider our limited remedies of impeachment, recall elections (available in certain cases), and just waiting to election time to vote for the other guy. The world has been through far worse times than now.

If we tweak a car's engine it will affect its motion. This does not mean that things in motion are dependent on combustion engines. The consciousness in humans may be created by, be a side effect of, nervous systems. Or it may be that the nervous system affects or is a vehicle for human consciousness (and other animals). Right now we don't know. We can't measure consciousness. So we measure behavior and functions. And we have had a long bias to assume consciousness to be present only in things like us. In fact up into the early 70s it was taboo in science to talk about animal consciousness (or emotions, intention, etc.). But we don't know. — Coben

This is the dualist's quandary: How does the conscious affect the body and vice versa. I don't think this should lead us to wonder whether rocks have a conscious. This is the flip side of the solipsist who wonders whether he's the only conscious being in the universe, where one wonders if everything has a conscious, including rocks. Both positions seems to involve a waste of thought.

I'm not sure what you are doing here or why you answered my question to Unseen if you find this stuff uninteresting. — bert1

It's not interesting because it's ridiculous. It's ridiculous to assert that maybe rocks have experiences, even if you wish to admit their experiences are of a different degree than humans. I'm not sure why you want to admit that though, considering you have no way of knowing that rocks don't have rich mental states and are laughing at the simplicity of humans.

How is it that you know that rocks don't know all sorts of things and aren't silent omniscient gods?

The better question, and the one I assert, is why would I think that? The onus seems to be the one on making the claim.

My argument is NOT that there is no difference - it’s that we need to better understand and explore the many, many, MANY incremental differences in how information is processed and embodied between a rock molecule and human being as an evolution rather than as a single line in the sand. — Possibility

The scientific record doesn't support a theory of higher and lower order rocks where marble, for example, can be shown to have ancient granite ancestors. Much of this has to do with rocks not being able to reproduce, much less actually having DNA.

Rocks don't process information in any literal way. This conversation remains ridiculous regardless of how much you wish to stubbornly maintain it.

Do the various practitioners of the aptly named GRIEVANCE STUDIES deserve this fraud? Is this fraud unethical?

Discuss savagely like dogs fighting over a bone at Hooters. — Bitter Crank

I don't see this as fraud. Fraud would entail falsification of data or results that would deceive those critically evaluating the information. If I say something that prima facie is nonsense, I should be immediately recognized for my bullshit by those charged with critically evaluating my claims. If you create a system that has no objective standard for critical evaluation and that results in bullshit getting through your filterless system, the problem rests with your system.

That is to say, if my dog applies to your university and you allow Fido in because you've eliminated all objective admissions standards, you can hardly complain when cats and dogs get into your university and you look foolish. Such is critically different from me falsifying my transcripts and admissions scores and gaining admission. The latter is fraud. The former is just proof your institution has lost its way.

I can't. The differences in your behaviour from that of a rock do not allow me to make any general conclusions about consciousness, as far as I can tell. But you may have noticed something I have missed. That's why I am asking you (and Unseen if s/he cares to answer).

What is the relevant difference between the behaviour of humans and the behaviour of rocks, such that you attribute consciousness to the former but not the latter? — bert1

So this conversation isn't interesting. It is based upon the false premise that you cannot decipher a meaningful difference between rock behavior and my conversation with you here and that has somehow caused you to wonder whether rocks are thinking, conscious things. I suppose the task you're assigning me is that I offer up some distinction and we go round and round with some nonsense Socratic attempt for you to show me that people and rocks aren't too terribly different in terms of consciousness. It's no more interesting for me to do that than it might be for me to assert that actually rabbits are planets and then we can go round and round where I point out that all the distinctions you provide are vague and subject to ad hoc corrections, so maybe rabbits and planets are just the same. Definitional imprecision is a universal objection, but it hardly means we really can't distinguish cats from dogs.

Do you believe that a rock molecule has the capacity to receive an isolated bit of information from its environment (eg temperature change, directional force) that it embodies, and in doing so transmits information to its environment - whether or not it is aware of that information AS temperature change or directional force as such? — Possibility

The behavior of a rock differs not so slightly from the behavior of a person. I understand that every object is subject to physical laws, but surely you see a difference between a ball bouncing off a wall and a person throwing a ball.

Are you suggesting you don't know you're communicating with a conscious being and wonder if I might be a rock?

Since you can decipher my behavior from a rock, why not use the distinctions you recognize to answer your own question.

It does, but what follows from that? That's perfectly consistent with the idea that alteration in the functioning of a plant, or a rock, or a cell, or a plastic bottle, or whatever, likewise affects its consciousness. — bert1

As I noted, the only reason I believe any object other than myself has consciousness is by observing its behavior. Consciousness cannot be seen directly and the only consciousness I can actually experience is my own. I therefore have no reason to believe rocks have consciousness.

Why do you think a nervous system is necessary for consciousness? — bert1

Because alteration of an organism's nervous system predictably affects its consciousness.

With the Turing test, the question is whether an AI entity that behaves entirely conscious is actually conscious. It is indisputable that consciousness exists, considering I know myself to be conscious. I cannot know, however, whether anything else is conscious, but I assume there are other conscious entities based upon their behavior. So, if you had a computer that acted entirely conscious, I would not know if it were amazing mimicry or whether it was actual consciousness. The key here though is that what I'm trying to decipher with the Turing test is whether a particular entity is conscious just like I know myself to be. I don't doubt my own consciousness, just the consciousness of others..

Moving to free will. If we see a computer that appears to act freely (just like people do), we might conclude that it too must be free because its behavior looks to be free, but that entirely begs the question. The question being begged is "Does free will exist?" That is, how can we say that the computer is free because it looks free like us when we're not even sure we're free? Unlike consciousness, where we know we're personally conscious and we don't ask "Does consciousness exist," we don't know if we're free and we do ask "does free will exist?". The best we can say is that the computer looks to be free like us, but we're not even sure we're free.

That's actually quite paradoxical. If your aware of social Darwinism along with conservative sentiment that statement doesn't contrive with those doctrines. — Wallows

It's a false dichotomy to require that I either accept we are either (1) entirely products of our environment and genetics or (2) entirely products of our choices. The conservative position is no more #2 than is the liberal position is #1. To accept #1 is to deny free will of any sort. To accept #2 is to pretend I could fly if I just chose to.

My position is that our environment and our genetics shape us, offer us all sorts of benefits and challenges, and define us is some real ways. I don't discount though the power of the will, whatever it is, that propels some of the the struggling to greatness and some with so many privileges to failure. Good choices and bad choices matter, including refusing to take the steps needed to move you out of your misery.

I suppose I'm lucky I can eat a hamburger and not gain the weight that some Native Americans do, but it's not a foregone conclusion that I won't get fat and some of the Native Americans I spoke of won't be thin. Choices matter.

Part of me wants to say that psychology is anti-rational. I mean, if a person was exposed to trauma, abuse, and neglect, and form a resulting aversion towards risk with dealing with people, then what's wrong with that? — Wallows

If you evolve in an adverse environment, then you may be ill equipped to survive once you leave it. While your paranoia might make you particularly well equipped to survive abuse, it's going to limit you once you're freed of the abuse.

There's a native American tribe in the southwest US that is known to be the most obese and diabetic population on the planet. They evolved in the desert, deprived of a predictable source of food. Their bodies became super-efficient at storing energy, but they now live in a land of plenty, so they just keep getting fatter and fatter.

A eats meat every day. He owns a pet that just eats grass.
B is a vegetarian. He owns a pet that eats meat every day. — orcestra

B might own a cat. Are you suggesting cat ownership is unethical because cats are unethical because they are carnivorous and any association with a meat eater is unethical?

Would the world be a better place if no animal were a predator and we were all plants?

What can science say about prayer? Only that such experiments as have been performed have not detected any effect. But the comfort it gives to believers is not visible to science either. There is no significant contradiction here, unless a believer were to assert that prayer does have a literal and measurable effect on recovery. For there is no evidence for that. ... Today. In the future, who knows? We already know about the placebo effect. Shouldn't prayer have exactly such an effect, in some cases at least? :chin: — Pattern-chaser

The point is that no study has shown the effectiveness of prayer in offering a cure for the illness. Having cancer and feeling calm about it because of the prayer isn't a cure for the cancer. The placebo effect can always be accounted for using proper methodology.

Consider this:

Group A - 100 sick people are prayed for by 100 people and the sick people are told about it.
Group B - 100 sick people are prayed for by 100 people and the sick people are not told about it.
Group C - 100 sick people are not prayed for.

The results could be used to determine if there were a statistically significant difference among the groups and it controls the placebo effect.

If A and B > C, then prayer works.
If A and B < C, then prayer hurts.
If A > B, but B = C, then the placebo work.
If A = B = C, then prayer doesn't work and there's no placebo effect.
If B > A and C, then prayer works only when you don't tell people about it.

Anyway, you get the picture. Such a study can be done to account for whatever variables you have.

I agree but this common ground between science and religion seems to be impossible to find and this is probably due to, as you said, zealots on both sides of the issue. — TheMadFool

This just defines true blue religious believers pejoratively as zealots. Is it really a zealot who believes that if he prays for his dying friend, his friend may receive divine intervention? I think that's a mainstream belief among believers, but it's obviously not compatible with science. If prayer actually worked, then those results would be published in the New England Journal of Medicine and would become prescribed treatment, right?

There is no disagreement between science and religion that cannot be simply resolved by reasonable and fair-thinking people. IMO. — Pattern-chaser

It depends upon the religion, though. Those who look at the Bible, for instance, as historically accurate will have serious problems making those views compatible with science, particularly with the creation story and the flood story (among others). It's also not clear what the purpose of prayer would be under a scientific model. Other than satisfying psychological needs, it's pretty clear you're not going to be able to arrive at an empirical study that proves prayer works.

If you approach religion from a very abstract view, I'm sure you can make it compatible with science, but such vague religious beliefs (like simply believing in a nebulous higher power) do not usually form the basis for an organized religion. Unless you're further willing to say that those who are part of organized religion are simply not "reasonable and fair thinking people," then I don't you can say that all reasonable and fair thinking people can resolve their religious/scientific conflicts.

But from your (3) it also follows that you can't control your very argument, so how can you believe in it? That's exactly my problem. — Pippen

That's the problem with determinism. The conclusion we reach is determined by preexisting causes, not necessarily by the force of the accuracy of the argument. If one makes an argument, it is assumed the conclusion is accepted because it makes sense, not because you were forced to accept it, but that's inconsistent with determinism.

Is Christianity a monotheistic religion? — Jacob-B

You've first got to define monotheism. While that seems like a simple enough concept, it's really more complex than the idea that there is but one god in all of the universe.

Judaism is considered a monotheistic religion, but that should not be thought to mean the ancient Jews did not believe there was but one god in all the universe. They believed there was only one supreme being who had all the power over all the other gods. Yahweh was not a generic name for God, but was the name of the actual entity that ruled supreme over the universe.

Looking at Exodus chapters 7 to 10, which describe the 10 plagues, God proved his superiority over the Egyptian "sorcerers and magicians" which were able to perform the miracles of turning a staff into a snake, the Nile into blood, and were able to bring forth the plague of frogs. They couldn't do all the things Yahweh did though (like create gnats) and Pharaoh finally relented and freed the Jews when the plague of slaying the first born was laid down.

If there were other mini-gods, capable of supernatural powers, then what makes Judaism monotheistic? We can say that within Judaism, there were not epic battles between the Jewish gods like might exist in Greek mythology, and you didn't have different gods with different powers, where one ruled the earth, the other the sea, and another some other realm. The notion of a single most powerful god, whose power went unchecked, who was the undisputed champion of all events, is what makes Judaism monotheistic.

Going back to Christianity, where you have the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, what you have are three intentionally obscured concepts that cannot be clearly defined. What we do know is that they all are unified for a common cause, they do not do battle with one another, they aren't each given specific duties or realms to rule over, and they all seem to arise out of the same spiritual essence. Because there are three names and perhaps three non-physical entities, (although Jesus was for a time physical)), you can say the religion appears polytheistic, but, there is something quite different from the Christian landscape than the ancient Greek one, where you had a god over the land and another over the sea who were sometimes at odds with one another. The Christian concept presents the trinity in a unified way, as in they all seem to arise out of one another and they all are directed toward the same purpose and good.

I also don't want to summarize Christianity or Judaism as not having differing views on this issue. I am aware, for instance, that Mormonism might have a different take on this, with their belief in a corporeal God and a belief that the trinity is composed of three truly separate entities. Perhaps they are more truly polytheistic, but I'll leave that to a Mormon theologian to explain better than me. From what I understand, the Mormons might admit to a certain degree of polytheism and do not consider it to be a criticism, but I'll defer if there's someone who knows better.

Wealthy people should pay more because they are actually receiving more services and better than poor people. — Bitter Crank

Maybe, but I doubt that's the real basis for the progressive tax system. I think the real reason is simply that the wealthy can afford to pay more taxes without much personal suffering.

There are no doubt wealthy people as you describe: industrious and who use more than their fair share of government resources. There are other old money folks though who just sit atop their money and use limited resources. You wouldn't suggest those folks be given a tax break?

Submissions aren't queued for moderator preapproval. They should immediately appear. I checked and didn't see your post in the spam filter (which is sometimes where things do end up).

Where did you post? I'll see if I can figure it out.

I can't find the emoticon for :Jesus wept:, so you'll have to imagine it. — unenlightened

Baby Jesus weeping:



This is why baby Jesus is my favorite Jesus:

I find the OP a bit of a straw man to the extent there's a suggestion that current day anti-Semitism is the result of ancient accusations of the Jews having killed Jesus. As in the case of Nazi Germany, the Jews were being blamed for all sorts of societal ills, but the Nazis were not fundamentalist Christians who were trying to settle an age old dispute about messiah killing. Contemporary anti-Semitism tends toward blaming the Jews for what they are allegedly doing right now that is supposedly damaging to society.

There's also obviously anti-Jewish sentiment expressed by non-Christians as well, particularly Muslims, and even should some of those disputes have ancient origins (and clearly some have contemporary origins), they are obviously not related to the killing of the Christian messiah.

The point being that little progress will be made in alleviating modern day anti-Semitism by clarifying that the Jews didn't kill Jesus. I really don't think that's what motivates anti-Semitic behavior, and I think it drags out an obscure theological debate that no (or very, very few) Christian denominations take seriously. At any rate, the Catholic Church does not accept the position that the Jews killed Jesus. https://www.npr.org/2011/03/04/134264425/Pope-Jews-Are-Not-Responsible-For-Killing-Jesus

Southerners always say that they declare before they declare in order to not startle anyone. I do declare, It's a most genteel society.

It's well known that Scottish English inserts gibberish as every third word just so they can roll their Rs. Native Scots are able to filter out the filler sounds seamlessly.

The Welsh, on the other hand, fuck sheep.

The phonetic difference between "nigger(s)" and "nigga(s)" probably has its origin in the AAVE tendency to drop the final 'r'. — Bitter Crank

AAVE isn't non rhotic like New England, British, or old South (I do declaa), but it truncates most all final consonamts. "Where are you going" becomes "Whe you goin" eliminating all final consonamts, including the entire single syllable verb "are."

It's verb usage is also distinct, with the to be verb used differently. The above sentence is often spoken as "whe you be goin?"

Wow. So geologists are racist as hell as it turns out. — frank

1886 wasn't the most progressive of years.

But that article doesn't mention the spherical rocks. They're pretty rare. Maybe that's why. — frank

No, they called them as they did because they reminded some redneck of how black men's heads looked and so he and Bubba coined the term and they laughed their cracker ass heads off. Apparently the name got passed down through the generations like their crossed eyes and webbed toes and it fell upon your ears and you got to share it with us.

A hearty thank you for that.

As long as you don't read or respond to any of the actual argument by linguists that there is a case for considering usage as fundamentally different (and therefore a logical basis for disparate treatment of such usage) you're on solid ground here. :up: — Baden

So salty. Definitely Celtic. You lack the refinement of an Anglo.

What is the specific name of the rock you're referencing?

Yes, but that's stretching the term beyond meaning, so that the distinction is lost. It's just not practical or useful to do that. — S

It is useful. My son is half Jewish, so he checked the mixed race box on some application for something for preferential treatment.

I would urge you to get over that, but I can't force you to change how you feel about it. — S

There'd be little gained if I overcame my limitations and was finally able to speak the N word with greater comfort. It offers me one less area to get myself into trouble at least.

You mentioned that you were mixed race earlier. — S

Everyone pretty much is. You're probably Anglo and Saxon or maybe Scotch and Irish. Most black Americans have some European blood in them. This whole tribal distinction, community distinction thing, or whatever arbitrary line we're trying to draw where some can use the N word and others not, I'm just not buying despite @Baden's assurance I'm overlooking a logical basis for disparate treatment.

Exactly. I think that it's a mark of intelligence and maturity if one is able to distance oneself from all of the hooha, and just have an honest, open and direct discussion about it. If we want to discuss the word "nigger", let's just discuss the word "nigger". — S

I'm more comfortable not using it, so I don't. Some people don't say Fuck for the same reason. I say Fuck, but not the N word.

There's an old name for them that nobody uses anymore because it had the n-word in it. As far as I know, there isn't a new word, though. The last time I heard someone try to speak about them, they just pointed and said "those." — frank

I don't believe that the official name of those rocks were N-rocks or something similar. That's probably what people called them because poor black people used them for building or something and the name has its roots in racism. It's just really doubtful that from some cosmic coincidence an ancient native tribe or something called them that and now we're stuck with a now politically incorrect name.

I could go over all the creative ways the N word has been injected into various other words, but it'd be a fairly racist recitation, considering many here would think the way it's been used is funny, so I'll spare everyone.

You'd probably get away with calling your wife and her friends a bitch. I actually think you could pull it off if you used it in the right context, like saying "hey bitch" with a feminine voice when you see them and prance over and give them a hug. It's risky, sure, but I think you overstate their protection of that word and I fully believe in your comedic sense of timing.

Lemme know how it goes.