This misses the OPs point. That is amorphous and unworkable as between value systems. Even within value systems, tolerance levels will have different responses coming to the same claims.

LOL. Let's say yes. Response to Questioner is probably apt too.

This post is brought you to by my life-long understanding of my own mother, my long-term partners including my wife (and a mother), my three closest mother friends, one of whom has twins, and then after off of this, my own thoughts and impression.

So it is with grave concern that I read about the womanosphere - a growing movement that puts women in the place allotted to them by white, Christian conservative men. It entreats women to abandon their humanity – “meant to turn women into creatures who never again trust the voice inside their own ribs.”

The womanosphere (created and controlled by white, conservative Christian men) – — Questioner

Don't approach communities by engaging their critics. That is absurd. Engage communities by engaging its members and its actual activities. I have engaged this specific community quite a bit through my wife's interest (interest - not inclination).

An example here, it seems to be suggesting that in Social Media, spaces by women, for women who are conservative, prefer traditional roles etc... are somehow subverting their rights and what not. That is absolute bullshit. Go and talk to those women. I often do, as does my wife. They're lovely, happy people who are certainly not oppressed in any sensible way - unless, of course, your bent is to assume that any one who submits even a smidgen of anything to anyone else must be a child incapable of taking care of herself against the big bad mean men in the comments (not to mention that blog is god-awful preening crap written by someone who likely thinks first-year creative writing courses set you up for a life of journalism - and has never stepped outside the clear, semi-aggressive ideological bubble they're in). They're mostly just women who enjoy typically feminine things and behaviours. There's nothing wrong with this.

Besides this,

Dr. Estés has created a new lexicon for describing the female psyche. Fertile and life-giving, it is a psychology of women in the truest sense, a knowing of the soul. — Questioner

This is exactly the kind of stuff that the vast majority of mothers dealing with real-world problems have no time for. They need to pay bills, fix illnesses, work jobs, deal with transport, birthday parties, fees, permissions, clothes, food, happiness.

Mothers need to raise their children. That's what a mother does. While I agree, there needs to be restrictions on any kind of coercion, oppression or enforcement of anything but plain responsibility on mothers, there also needs to not be totally misleading, unhelpful rhetoric floating about convincing young women we're living in the middle ages and we can create our living myths around our children. It's selfish and dumb. It's about the kids. Much to be said for men, obviously.

The most glaring example of late is that you say the trans abomination comment is trivial but treat it in a way that is anything but trivial. We literally have been talking about it for weeks. — praxis

Because you continually made something of it which was erroneous, and asked me, continually, to explain myself. This isn't something I picked up on as important. I responded to your sticking on it for so long. I saw the comment as i currently see it, more or less when I first saw the clip. Never seemed interesting. There's no contradiction in my responding to you banging on about a single thing he said one time which you misinterpreted.

As to the remainder, you've literally just done it again. I've addressed all of this, extremely clearly, and it is now pretty much unavoidable to conclude that you're just wanting to pain people certain ways, facts be damned. Again, thank you for remaining civil.

You've got a hell of a lot of work todo beyond what you're saying here. That's your inuition - and I get that. It is most people's intuition. That's probably the basis for most religion impulse. "We must be more than meat". But there is no real reason to think so. We appear to be sets of dispositions and behaviours. But there are no clear edges, no sufficient and necessary conditions etc..

Again, please get yourself across the discussions on the topic over the years. While its not good for a lot, AI will do a great job are summarizing competing theories. I highly, highly suggest this before looking to have the above comment analysed into nothingness.

Oysters and Sunlight Banno... Compare them if you must. I shall refrain.

But, if all perception is by introspection, how do we ever know that it is wrong? — Ludwig V

That's not quite what's being suggested here. All i was doing was putitng paid to a patent stupidity in this discussion - not suggesting there's an out-and-out solution. But i do note that the objections still just fall back on "well that's weird" or "I have a hard time talking that way". In any case, this is one of hte uncomfortable realities of, at least leaning, IR. How can we explain actual error in perception? You can't. You can discuss agreement, and statistical likelihood one has accurately reported the world around them. We can approximate to an extremely close degree, when this has occurred. We do not need direct access to objects for that system to work. It just means that one event which violates expectation in a certain way could up-end whatever we think is the underlying reason for thinking this (i.e, if it turns out objects we interpret as curved are actually angled in some odd way which human perpcetion interprets weirdly, or some other speculative fabulation).

Why can't I just say that I see the sun as it was eight minutes ago? — Ludwig V

You probably could. But that would be admitted that you're essentially looking at a pale imitation (although, pale seems entirely inapt here lmao). If that's the case, and there's a significant difference between seeing the Sun let's say from 200 miles away (impossible physically, but i'm sure you see where I'm going...) and from the Earth, then we need to get a grip on what that is. At any rate, we're having to admit (rather, we should, if being honest, admit) that there is an unavoidable chasm (in this case, physically as well as epistemically) between our object and the experience which presents it to us. Its awkward, but that's no reason to retreat into simplicity for comfort sake, imo.

I expect you mean that what we see is an image of the sun. — Ludwig V

More-or-less.

So I can only know that I'm seeing an image of the sun if I know what the sun looks like. — Ludwig V

What's the problem with that? Labels don't operate as apodictic reportage. "the Sun" can only possibly refer to that which humans, under normal circumstances, agree to call "the Sun". Whether this is eight-minute-old light or an "Actual" star so many millions of miles away isn't determinative. If humans are, as this seems to make clear, restricted to an experience of light reflected from the sun eight minutes ago, we can never be sure and that's fine.

Scrutinizing images will never tell me that. — Ludwig V

You're right. Which is why, to me, it seems an attempt to claim DRism is bound to fail, and everyone needs to just get comfortable with the fact that we don't experience an object, but light which is highly relevant to it.

I simply challenge the OP to come back in five years and acknowledge that nothing predicted here happened.

are no no-go areas as suggested by Trump — Punshhh

The problem with this is that I've seen several first-hand videos (i.e the person is in the situation themselves while filming, not following up some other person's claim) of Islamic groups literally roaming streets and accosting people for their garb, what they're eating, how their women are presented and behaving etc.. across the UK (so, no-go might be a bit far, but these videos generally result in criminal assaults from the groups trying to enforce Sharia). Of course you wont get some official statement confirming this - they, self-admittedly - ignored at least two long-term rape gangs in the UK for risk of "sounding racist". It cannot be taken at face value - but then, I can't use the videos i've seen as evidence of some widespread issue.
My point is that we need to be able to actually hear each on these instead of just making blanket claims like "there are no.." or "All x are..." etc.. I'm not someone who thinks "Immigrants are taking our jobs". But I do tend to see videos and take them for what they actually are, in the video, as I'm watching it. This cuts both ways. I also see plenty of horrific behaviour on the part of so-called "progressive" thinkers and protestors that are criminal, immoral and unacceptable. I don't then paint all progressive protesters are jobless louts.

Regarding “unhinged leftists”, there is no such thing, it’s possible there are a handful in a population of 65 million, but it really doesn’t exist (Unless you are referring to climate protesters). — Punshhh

We live in different worlds and I do not think you're adequately paying attention to the neutral point i'm making: You have no seen evidence to convince you of this. That is fine. I have slews of evidence of unhinged leftists carrying out assaults, property damage and behaviours that genuinely appear to be mental illness let loose. If you want to see it, I can give it to you.

If you are unwilling, that would confirm the hypothesis I've put forward:

There is also, though, hte issue of people being genuinely uninterested or maybe unwilling to look at contrary evidence — AmadeusD

Regarding extreme right wing violence, there is a fare amount, it just doesn’t make the news so much these days. Remember a member of parliament (Joe Cox) was murdered by them in 2016. — Punshhh

I would be more than happy to see the evidence for this. I currently am not aware of anything similar to what I'm talking about.

Regarding Joe Cox, an Islamic Extremist killed David Ames much more recently. It doesn't really matter to the point. We're not arguing facts here, we're talking about how people are so intensely unwillingly to see examples of their side being assholes.

While I think Questioner is making two classic mistakes (conflating correlation with causation and appeal to authority) I also think what you're saying isn't quite there yet. You need to be able to tell us what a person is before you can really make this objection. How could we find the boundaries?

PLenty of much, much smarter people than anyone on this forum have been at this for millennia. It's probably best to get across a lot of that - culminating, most importantly, I think, in "Reasons and Persons" by Derek Parfit. It is pushing toward 45 years old and hasn't really lost any flavour.

I take its conclusion: There is no such thing as a person, other than a conceptual comfort humans use to get on with things. There's nothing to be pointed out or drawn-out of the world to give us a necessary and sufficient description of a person.

So if you can approach this one, awesome. Otherwise, the objection isnt quite there yet imo.

Nothing here solves the problem. "Do unto others" is unworkable. Not everyone agrees with other's take on that. T Clark is being far, far too simplistic.

If mental processes are independent of neural processes then they ought to be unaffected by the relativity of velocities. If they are not independent of neural states then they ought to be affected. — Janus

This was my initial thought. But, funnily enough, I also went straight to psychedelic experience to note that this is perhaps simple illusion. That said, I can't see a way to litigate that. It's possible that if subjective experience isn't 1:1 eiwth neural activity that psychedelics invoke a similar effect to close-to-light-speed travel.

Some great thoughts here. On the delineation between many kinds of "beautiful" I can see several that are quite disparate:

A beautiful legal argument was the example, but one could say a beautiful proof. Its not visually or colloquially aesthetically pleasing, i wouldn't think. Certainly I do not find legal arguments (also my wheelhouse - sup boys) visually appealing. They are visually daunting and tend to get me groaning. But once i'm in it, understanding the nuances and seeing where it lands up, I get feelings very similar to the internal non-descripts of seeing a sunset which is striking.

But seeing the sunset is immediately pleasing. I didn't need to understand some underlying property of the "object" (for ease) whereas enjoying legal argument takes training, hard-work and a very keen eye for detail and inference. They seem to be two distinct natures of something which may psychologically end up being the same (i.e the ineffability, numinosity etc..) which we tend to call "beauty".

When it comes to other humans, I think that comes down to a mix of the two. What do you understand about your own desires? What have you learned whic affects them? In contrast, what aspect of a woman or man would be evolutionary advantageous to gun for? We are animals, after all, trying to fuck, mostly.

At least two distinct 'types' which operate differentl, and a possible chimeric third.

See. Impulse control of a toddler.

It is light data from eight minutes (roughly) ago. — AmadeusD

This part matters, Banno. When you cast your eyes to the Sun, you literally are not seeing the Sun. You're seeing light from the sun which is eight minutes old. Nothing interesting about this, except trying to get around it to say you're directly aware of hte Sun in any given moment. Just stupid.

Don't get sucked in. Dude cannot form a worth while response to anything. Just ad hominem. AS he's probably do when he sees this, proving my point. Feeding trolls is bad business.

:ok:

I extremely disagree, but that is also why we've been arguing for weeks.

This is why i said I think it's run its course. You seem to finally admit that I am not defending maliciousness, but could simply be wrong, and I'm understanding that you see things in ways I cannot fault, but I think are wrong. Can't see us getting further.

Earlier Presidents didn't have badly trained agents actively roaming the streets for possible illegal immigrants and stopping people who look to be foreigners. — ssu

They didn't need to (the badly trained part is arguable - they fucked up constantly under Obama particularly in terms of care-giving in custody).

to you walking on the street or driving home and your stopped by the border guard. — ssu

I do not see this the way you do. I would have absolutely no problem doing this in the midst of a crack down on illegal immigration. But yeah, I understand what you're saying now. Thank you.

I see, the Newman effect strikes again! :lol: — praxis

Err, no. What hte fuck dude... this has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it.

Either I or you (and likely me) misinterpreted video evidence of an event. Good god.

You do not need to hypotheticalise this: The Sun is not what we see when we look at the sun. It is light data from eight minutes (roughly) ago.

There's simply no way NOS4A2 thinks he's seeing the sun directly without making such an egregious error in almost every relevant domain as to perhaps think he's trolling. I wouldn't be surprised.

You just ignore the question. That's why it's repeated. If you continue to refuse to answer, you will either be pushed to answer, or you will be dismissed. There is some incredible ignorant in these responses, if we're not going to assume you're trolling. So dismissal seems most reasonable to save me time.

Are you arguing against genetic variability in humans? — Questioner

Please stop asking ridiculous questions of me about things I haven't said. Either respond to what I've actually said, or don't. But do not ask me about things I haven't said, or even intimated. Your description betrays what you claim she's said about the Amygdala:

There is no such thing as a "transitory state" of evolution. That is what evolution is. Her claim scientifically unsound, and used in support of an further unsound thesis about emotional regulation. She has no expertise or even training in the area. It doesn't make any sense.

Everything you've said supports my rejection of Elizabeth's claim (which you seemed to be happy with?). What a bizarre exchange.

Under typical conditions, medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) connections with the amygdala are immature during childhood and become adult-like during adolescence. — Questioner

This is wholly irrelevant to the obviously false claim a blogger made.

I don't think it is romanticizing at all, but an investigation to better understand who we are as a species when the unnatural environment we live in has been peeled away. — Questioner

Well, it is. In this case, overtly.

ADmittedly, I already have my conclusion on his killing, so haven't bothered to look too far into it -you might be right, but both appeared to me present across both videos. Nothing turns on it, though. It would be good to focus on that.

I think that is somewhat wrong. Largely, because its predicated on the idea that because English doesn't carry specific, un-changing single word references to those various concepts, we don't really have them. That just seems patently wrong, to me.

I don't think there's any truck in the thesis. Its a bit romantic, at best.

She doesn't appear to have any background which would support taking her neuroscientific opinions seriously.

its being in a transitory state of evolution — Questioner

This is an extremely weird thing to claim. Evolution doesn't have stop-gaps. Organs which develop do so along evolutionary lines, and there isn't a valid way to claim what she is claiming. Its romantic language dressed up to be scientific.

Nevertheless - I think it is a valid observation that love is not approached by all cultures/traditions in the same way. For example, indigenous traditions tend to prioritize the communal over the individual. — Questioner

First, yes definitely - but only somewhat. The different concepts of love exist in various cultures - there is no sort of 1:0 relationship between those concepts that would have us saying "they see love differently". The West is actually highly predicated on community continuity and closeness along Christian lines. We just have too many people.

I think there's a bit of a tendency to romanticize past cultures coming into play here, resulting in ambiguous, scientifically unsound claims being made. But those societies lack in many ways and are not apt comparisons to multicultural, billion-person societies aimed at exploration, scientific understanding and technological advancement.

Yes, to you. And I understand that. It doesn't sound like anything particularly interesting to me. I also explained myself with reference to psychology, personal experience and the general set of values I would apply to the situation. We simply differ on those.

You don't care about plenty of things I find extremely important. I don't find those situations to be you expressing callousness - I find we have different values and operate along different sets of information which largely, isn't our faults.

Calling someone a name (an actual name, not an epithet) they don't like/want to be called is trivial. You disagree. That's fine.

Spitting on someone, or pushing them is assault or battery depending on circumstance. Again, this doesn't alter the ultimate outcome. It's just a matter of admitting that these people aren't saints, to be held as martyrs. That's true.
But it doens't take anything whatever away from the callous, horrific nature of his death

There is no justification for what we did in Vetnaum, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Cuba, Venezuela, and Greenland. — Athena

:grimace: :grimace:

I worry that romanticizing suffering drains victims of moral standing. — Truth Seeker

The modern problem.

Because both Biden and Obama did not go with it as Trump has done. — ssu

Hey bud - can you say what you mean here? I'm genuinely, semantically not understanding - Obama at least with highly motivated and animated about mass deportation, which was carried out, and in pretty shitty conditions. I don't want to wade into that, just giving context for why i just want to know what this specific thing is pointing out

I guess kicking off the tail lights warrants being executed by two agents firing multiple shots… — Christoffer

The man was murdered unjustly by ICE — NOS4A2

You can do much, much better than this, even being caught in a semi-delusional state. NOS4a2 says enough stupid, morally corrupt shit. to not do this...

Pretti assaulted federal agents? — praxis

Yes. It just doesn't matter. He was murdered, plain and simple (it was also like, 11 days earlier as I understand so likely totally irrelevant unless it was the same agent, and in that case, runs against the Agent).

How do you know he didn’t lie? Stupid people lie. — praxis

Yeah, that's absolutely true but we do not assume someone is lying at face value - in this case, particularly because he was clearly bent to believe shit that couldn't possibly be well supported. But, his beliefs are not my thing to comment on the motivations for, if you see what I mean.

I told you that after graduating from Harvard she was hired a top international law firm. She’s had other positions as well. — praxis

Of course; I am aware. That isn't what Kirk, or I was talking about. Man. This is getting tough.

Right, it’s an example of the “Newman effect.” — praxis

No. That is a purposeful activity. Something done directly to Kirk, including throughout your posts. Again, getting tough lol.

So you’re as callous as Kirk. — praxis

No. You just have an opinion derived from false understandings of what's been said, ignorance of my actual experience (which I've laid out) and ignorance of the views of plenty of trans people (the wrong kind of trans? LOL).

I think probably this has run it's course but thank you for remaining entirely civil these last few exchanges. Appreciate it.

This post contains all of the English concepts she's saying we don't have. Weird.

As I asked before : what philosophical problem is Noetics the solution to? — Gnomon

The entire issue of private experience. If private experiences (and in this case, the noetic quality of those experiences) are derived from a wide-dimensioned, and accessible, world of sensation that not only opens the Hard Question (doesn't solve it) to much richer and more interesting theories (and sets down many of hte mundane as untenable) but it also means we can finally talk about qualities like "satisfaction" in terms that have to do with something beyond our "earthly realm".

So that was a shoddy wording without saying, look, it solves a number of tensions but raises the further questions. It would just put paid to several currently-well-loved theories..

I have a feeling you will quite like this short TED talk by a Johns Hopkins researcher. It is specific to a certain medical detail, but the discussions of hte metrics used are highly relevant here.

I think the authorities are struggling to adapt to this and politics is in turmoil because of the way it can be manipulated. — Punshhh

Definitely - I think its partially baked into how information travels though, right. Unless you're there, in the moment, people are going to draw different conclusions to any kind of reportage - apparently, even video evidence (I can restrict, to keep us relatively neutral, this, to condemning anyone saying Alex Pretti was in any way responsible for his own shooting. That's insane).

The Islamic crowd has been stimulated into action due to the genocide going on in Palestine and the fact that Western governments seem to be endorsing it and supplying the offender with weapons. The far right group has been mobilised by Nigel Farage over the issue of illegal immigration, which has amalgamated with the traditional right wing groups such as the BNP and the Tommy Robinson crowd. — Punshhh

Unfortunately, I think this formulation is probably evidence of the type of issues we're talking about (but obviously, I would - we have different views haha so I'm also doing it - to be sure). I'm not talking about protest groups - but roaming enforcers of Sharia in that case (and this well before Oct 7), and in the other, roaming groups of unhinged leftists assaulting and harassing random passersby(unfortunately, I have only instagram videos for this. If you'd like those links, I'll DM you) to agree to certain tenents like "fuck ICE" or whatever (this is restricted to current milieu, but it happens across many cultural 'events' as such in the last 20 years or so - most notably COVID - again, just to clarify, I am unaware of any groups on the right doing this sort of thing. Protesting, sure, but not this kind of genuinely fascist type of behaviour and that will speak to what's been available to me, If I have missed it).

That said, I'm not totally dismissing that formulation about the protest groups - but i think you're being charitable to one, and uncharitable to the other. As, likely, i would come across if I had carried out the same exercise. Just goes to the bolded above, I think. There is also, though, hte issue of people being genuinely uninterested or maybe unwilling to look at contrary evidence. For example, my position on the ICE/anti-ICE thing is that I see absolutely insanity on both ends of the spectrum: Some of the responses to Pretti's obvious murder have been absolutely baffling. But in the same vein, there are people defending all-out assault on ICE agents and military-style organizing of essentially militia groups to disrupt Federal law enforcement, and harass/assault random members of hte public.

Something prior to either of these positions need be the stopping point, or we can't talk to each other.

If we understood each other's goals to be so totally different as to warrant desisting from conversation, that would be bizarre but at least mutual. Currently, there's no mutuality even of the facts admitted. And yeah, I understand its easy to say "yes, one side is allergic to facts" but that would be to betray the issue, imo.

Well, personally, I wouldn’t make false claims—claims that politifact or others could easily debunk—to people I love. — praxis

That has nothing to do with what we're talking about here, though. If you can admit he was stupid, not lying, then we're good.

Michelle Obama has never acknowledged that she was a DEI hire. Why would she if she never was? — praxis

No, please read a bit more clearly: "On the grounds that". This means, taking that person's position on board and considering it from that perspective. I essentially agree with you, although she wasn't hired at all anyway just came along for the ride. I think she's said some absolutely god awful, stupid, indefensibly false shit over the years - but she wasn't even hired, so you're right to push that (and as I said, I don't take Kirk's position anyway). Charlie considered that to be hte case, and responded in that context. Again, can easily be called dumb or reactive for this, and probably should be. But its not lying or any other kind of bigotry.

I’m sure it makes sense to you. — praxis

If it makes sense, it makes sense. It can't make sense to me and not you :) It can just either be senseless, or misread.

Deadnaming someone and telling them they’re an abomination to God is just a vibe too—a hateful vibe. — praxis

Very, extremely, disagreed. But i have a feeling you are someone who thinks deadnaming someone is "violence" and I genuinely think its trivial (and no, I am not ill-informed about hte claims from certain kinds of trans people about this issue - I just have my own views and don't swallow personal claims at face value, generally) so there is probably too much daylight between us. As i've noted before, I do not give a flying fuck about deadnaming. I get deadnamed all the time. I simply couldn't give a shit. And my view is anyone who does make a big deal of it is doing themselves a mischief. If your identity is disturbed by being called Dan, that's not my problem. I can only give my own views (although, those of my trans friends mirror mine - they get on with their lives)

You obviously do, Mikie. Your mental schism is bizarre.

In my experience? I don’t see any images, mate. — NOS4A2

So, you keep making claims like this.

What do you call the images (there is literally no better word) of objects you perceive?

This is why I held you to the fire earlier - you only have two options if you do not consider the apply you 'see' as an image: It is either in your mind, or your mind is attached to the object. Appearance cannot occur other ways, askance a mediated perception (which we factually have, so its a tough road, i'll give you that).

You are simply dodging the questions here and its getting tedious. I've asked you directly to answer and you have refused. That is a very loud silence. And its loud because you are entirely ignoring, leapfrogging and pretending you've answered a question you havent even demonstrated an understanding of. Read some of Banno's posts.

Nevertheless, I find the Noetics concept philosophically interesting, though not convincing. — Gnomon

I agree. You might get a kick out hte Institute for Noetics - I think the basic premise is that ineffable experience indicates something beyond perception with regard to consciousness. Weird stuff - but I have to give full disclosure: I used to think that was a done deal.

This because the generation of the superseding species (or entity) dovetails with the yielding species achieving its highest self-realization through the instantiation and establishment of the superseding species. — ucarr

Is this just an unfortunately verbose way of saying "evolution is real and causes species to die"?

It's not hard, at all.

No, I wouldn't, and I cannot understand why you would, for several reasons (though, I don't find it weird. Giving opinions is natural response when they're coming up against each other, so not judging your position there):

Firstly, I am not religious. What's being claim is illegitimate to me. In any case, the context made it incredibly clear Kirk was not vilifiying a trans person, personally. If that's the premise you're operating on, we can drop it. It goes no where.
Secondarily, what the fuck do I care about a random person saying this? Unless the person was someone I actually trusted and (personally) loved - and seemed to be putting my child at risk - I cannot see why I would expend energy on this. That seems bizarre and perhaps the root of much emotional nonsense in the modern world. Stop trying to police random people's thoughts and feelings (this requires that the next response is apt, so hang tight).
Thirdly, if my kid went up and spoke to someone who is (at least portrayed as..) transphobic, how is it possible the fault is with the person my child went and antagonized in some way? My job is to teach my child to either put up with their decisions, or not go into spaces they already determine might be harmful to them. We do this with non-trans kids. And trans kids are (well, probably aren't a real thing in the sense meant here) aren't special in this way.
Fourth, that's their right. Plain and simple.
Fifth my job is to help my kid, not hurt other people. If you think otherwise, we live in different worlds.

Given the context, your final little bit doesn't seem relevant - a wider look at Charlie's views and interactions with people make it quite clear his intent (quite important) is not to villify. Believe it or not (genuinely - not me telling you its true regardless - just saying, that's my take whether or not you believe those interpretations).

If you can’t say anything about it that appears to mean it’s basically meaningless to you—just empty words. — praxis

This sentence does not make sense. If you could rephrase I could reply a bit more directly, but on it's face it looks like all you're doing is trying to say that there's an ulterior meaning (or, esoteric anyway) and that I'm wrong to take it at face value. Rejected on first principle grounds.

Okay, that’s one meaningful indicator of what it means to love everyone—you don’t lie. — praxis

Generally, maybe. But that is an absolute leap imo and not something I'm willing to take as a tenet. because there are counter-examples - but again, generally, yes, cool. Hopefully not a big spanner here.

If you check with politifact or some other fact checking organization there are many instances of claims made by Charlie Kirk that are judged to be false. Just typical MAGA stuff like about the 2020 election, Covid, climate change, etc. There is often a gap between political rhetoric and objective fact, to put it mildly, and it's obvious that Charlie was fully immersed in the game of politics—worse, MAGA politics.

No heavy judgment, but if loving everyone means not lying, well, Charlie's love seems to have been rather shallow. — praxis

Hmm. This is odd. Making a false claim is not lying; it's being wrong. Some of those are in contention anyway. But this doesn't speak to his claim to love everyone. This is just you assuming he willfully said false things. Very different claims, I think. You seem inordinately obsessed with propping up your beliefs about Charlie on demonstrably bad reasoning and factually inaccurate claims - can I ask why you're motivated to do this?

Where have I claimed that? — praxis

The reference here is to another thread, and in that thread, I variously quoted two examples these (Thread is closed - quote from you is "Oh right, Kirk and his followers think trans should exist. What reality are you living in?"
"A bigot like Kirk didn’t merely think trans are wrong or misguided as you mistakenly suggest; he consider them abominations. It's not just 'you are wrong,' but 'you should not exist.'"

You have directly claimed this at least twice and from what I see in the thread, one at least, is after I provided you with information which should have stopped you from making this claim, even if you have an internal commitment to it. There is no evidence of such. That is required.

I'm justifying ambivalence to his murder and pretending that his quote about trans abomination is as morally wrong as his assassination? — praxis

If you could point out where I charged you with that, it would be helpful. GIven we're discussing honestly, I would want a direct response to that. Irony looms large my friend.

I admitted to watching the godawful Williams video that you suggested I watch. I admitted to suffering through it twice, in fact — praxis

Jesus. You still don't see your own arse in the mirror do you?

He was supporting Kirk's claim that Michelle Obama and other black women "do not have the brain processing power to otherwise be taken really seriously," etc. That seems to be assuming the worst in them. He did not try to show their lack of intelligence, he just took it for granted. — praxis

He didn't assume anything. He commented on what he sees in their actual effect in the world (and to be clear, specific Black women who he (rightly or wrongly - this is extremely important) acknowledge were DEI-derived hires. I don't have the knee-jerk to DEI hires Charlie had, but on those grounds there is actually no good reason to reject what he's said which has been clipped to hell to sound racist which it demonstrably was not), and their actual, let's call them failings to be charitable. He did not, arbitrarily claim anything there. This is exactly what the next response is about...

I am? — praxis

Obviously.

What follows after because is an indecipherable word salad. The truth is you don't know why he didn't mention it, right? — praxis

That you appear to choose not to understand English in situations that it wouldn't be helpful for your position, isn't my problem. Feel free to have a go. I'm not judging you for that, but i am for this reply.

Anyway, if you and Kirk love everyone that means you love people who, for instance, rape and murder innocent children. That seems deranged. But I can see it to be true on a spiritual or transendent level, and also perhaps on a theological level. — praxis

That is roughly what is meant by the phrase "I love everyone". You seem to have solved your own problem here by finally acknowledging the actual intent and meaning of something someone else has said. That is good.
I love everyone on this exact level - we're all human, we're all fallible. It doesn't mean (as i've already made explicitly clear) that I agree with anything the person has done or said. I think you're bigoted. But that doesn't mean I don't love you on that same level. Clear enough?

Was Charlie spiritually or theologically advanced? — praxis

Hard to tell, given that's an almost meaningless thing to be - but I acknowledge what you're getting at. He wasn't a scholar, although, i'd suggest he had a better understanding of Biblical matters than the majority of American xtians. Speculation, to be sure.

In this light, isn't it rather self-aggrandizing to say that you love everyone—that you're so spiritually advanced that you can transcend the conventional world of good and evil? — praxis

I can't understand the question. It's just a vibe that people who understand the plight of the human race tend to take on. There's nothing 'advanced' about noticing that we're all human. I also suggest: Try taking 3 dried grams of psilocybin and not coming out with that as an extremely strong motivator for at least the short-term. It's the opposite of self-aggrandizing. And for Charlie, someone who routinely vilified himself, it seems a wilfully stupidity to suggest this - but i admit, I may not understand why you're asking given the lead-up doesn't do anything for it.

I apologise for wading into this thread.

It has made me far less optimistic about several posters.

You're not actually listening to what's being said. I have not denied what you (erroneously, nonetheless imo) posit.

What I'm saying is: they are not metaphysical commitments. They are models which are definitionally open to update on empirical grounds.

Religions are definitionally not. You cannot move from "worldviews" to "some specific person's belief" and get a coherent conversation going.

On their face, religions contradict each other metaphysically. Scientific models contradict each other empirically.

I wont be pressing that further.

Again, missing the point. I'm not denying what you think I'm denying. — Esse Quam Videri

Then your OP has been answered and your objections are about something else. That's fine.

Very much appreciate it, as always.

Falsifiable does not mean, "It can be proven to be false", its that "There is a state of being which would negate the claim that "X is Y", and that can be as simple as "X cannot be Y if X is Z". — Philosophim

:up: I think Hallucinogen's dissatisfaction comes from wanting a definitive call on whether or not all statements have this available. They don't. But ones which are apt for it either have what you've described (i.e an counterfactual) or they don't.

Hate and Love don't appear to be opposites.

Fear and Love make more sense, as Jkop has pointed out.

In this sense, both are apt for their uses. Both of apt for their misuses. Best we just focus on ourselves.