And not true. they don't just register anyone who walks in the door. — Questioner

I have seen evidence which would support that claim. I'm not standing heavily behind it, but the entire argument is that people should be able to vote without being verified. In that context, what are you indicating there? I'm just plum unaware of what that process would be, sans ID or whatever..

So your conception is that somewhere in the universe, people are allowed to vote without any check on whether they eligible to do so. Is this really the argument you’re making? — Mikie

You can re-read and answer this yourself. Please do not put words in people's mouths. We're making some headway recently.

I understand it differently. — Questioner

That's fair, but I think its on you to reach across a divide in this case - the definitions proffered above are those used by the vast majority of people. "consciousness" is the abstract concept of first-person phenomenal awareness and then you can then fill it with fun stuff like bikes and empathy, the sky and Love and what have you.. Lots to be discussed there, closer to your conception, but on these initial steps I think you're certainly talking at cross-purposes with most people here. Just a heads up :)

I'm a fan. Didn't find it a slog at all. That said, I far, far, far prefer Crying of Lot 49.

By 2100, the average temperature in Jerusalem will be 14-16 degrees hotter than it is now. — frank

I'm going to look into this at a time where I'm not tied to a discussion about it, but is this statement something you truly believe? That the average temp in Jerusalem by 2110 let's say, will be 40C or 104f?

he idea that there is any significant number of illegals voting is simply ridiculous. — Metaphysician Undercover

Ok. That's not relevant to this issue, unless it is for you. Let's assume all the current speculation comes to fruition, and there's multiple legitimate cases about large numbers of ineligible voters. Let's just say that's true. Cool. I wont be mentioning it again.

They can't even get the eligible motivated! — Metaphysician Undercover

So what?

It's crazy to think that there's a bunch of ineligibles just champing at the bit, to cast a vote for nothing. — Metaphysician Undercover

Wait; what? A vote for ...nothing? I cannot understand what you might mean. There are plenty of reasons for illegals to vote, if they're able.

Obviously, the need is to go the other way, make it easier for people to vote, not more difficult. — Metaphysician Undercover

It isn't difficult. That's the entire point. It isn't difficult, and most countries have no issues with these requirements. We do where I live. Want to know something? It was literally never spoken about, complained about or mentioned as anything other than a good for election security until BLM started getting international coverage. It's coattails.

As far as I am concerned, saying its fine for anyone to vote in federal elections without oversight or confirmation of eligibility is essentially ending secure elections. And, that is what it is by definition. So, it's not all that interesting to me whether people are doing it. It is that it shouldn't be allowed by the system.

On the other hand, what I actually have a problem with is people complaining about not being able to vote (when they probably wouldn't anyway if there wasn't social cache in complaining), due to regulations that apply to everyone. Everyone. It is fair. I think something I agree with NOS4a2 on is that the trust in the "system" as somehow uncorrupt, while discussing support for avenues for corrupt activity is bizarre.

I think probably that's an overstatement, but it definitely seems unfounded and mostly the arena for the gullible, yes. Luckily, for the argument supporting voter regulation, that's not really relevant.
The point is that allowing people to vote with no check on whether they are eligible is stupid. It is stupid.

Because there is an unexamined assumption that existence is not the basic good.
If we interrogate that, we have to confront some other questions. My take on the trolley problem actually takes this into account by saying that existence is not intrinsically good, and neither is life. Therefore, no decision is better than a decision which will, on my say so, kill that person, by my choice.

Not trying to argue that solution; simply saying that the trolley problem, as stated, very rarely gets people to discuss this aspect. It's just about responsibility for most.

Oh lol, yes. I think you may have responded to the wrong thing. I'm suggesting it does no such thing.

Thanks for replying to my post. — Herg

very welcome :) Nice to see you back, i suppose.

I’m an ethical naturalist, so I disagree. — Herg

Can you give me a 1:1 between a moral, and a natural fact? Bear in mind heavily that simply stating one of each, that you associate in your mind, isn't a respond to this particular query.

I shall show my hand slightly: This appears incoherent to me. They are of a totally different kind of "fact" if there even are any in either camp.

This is because I think it is a natural fact that pain is intrinsically bad — Herg

Can you say why? I know plenty of kinds of pain which are beneficial, or indicia of positive outcomes. This seems to falter here, already (this applies to physical and emotional pain, such as they are different).

Without free will, torture is still bad, but it isn’t morally bad — Herg

However, I can understand this statement IFF I saw a basis for the earlier claims.

The rest of this is a bit difficult to respond to in whole, so forgive the piecemeal nature..

My wife broke her thigh bone a few years ago, and when they were doing scans on her broken leg in the hospital, I had to listen to her screaming every time they moved the leg. — Herg

You are giving me your personal discomfort. Not a reason something is inherently bad.

I think she would have said the pain was bad — Herg

I agree. That doesn't make it intrinsically bad. It means, on that occasion, your wife saw it as bad.

the badness was just in her mind — Herg

Where is it?

Pain is bad because of what pain is like — Herg

That doesn't make sense. You then need to run this same exercise for whatever you decide "pain is like". If you're going to rely on a deeper fact, that also has to be supported in terms of the claim, I think. I'm not quite seeing the depth that could get you there, or more than opinion.

Back to you

I can't glean anything from this (which, now that I've edited my comment (while you were replying it seems) is ironic).

Could you perhaps try to say something I can respond to, if you're going to?

If they cannot make it free and easy for every citizen to get ID then it should be the government's burden to prove that a voter isn't a citizen and not a citizen's burden to prove that they are. — Michael

Yeah, got you; thanks for that. I understand the impetus.

I think that's utterly absurd and probably a cause for concern if you're ever in position to run any large number of people.

My reply would be that your actions in the world contradict this. — Sam26

I've never seen anyone do anythign remote closely to what Michael describes. One who's never left their room, but wears VR could be said to appear that way. This just, again, as always, misses the issue entirely. I suspect it's just not interesting to the likes of yourself, Essa and Banno - but then, why continue contributing?

When Banno claims he has, it makes no sense. He just claims it. Onward we go..

Because we're talking about the administrator of the website we're on who, despite any opinions, does more for the site than most us. And, in the face of dispute, there's a process, of a kind. I just think the process is broken, so I'm unsurprised.

No point talking shit about the guy running the place beyond noting that its not surprise others are having a similar experience. I doubt anything more could come from this thread anyway. Go to Feedback...

No. This follows from my premise, that the nature of the right is a political orientation towards elite interests. You may think that is bias. I think it is systematically true, and thus far I haven't seen a counterexample — hypericin

I could simply repeat my comment. You've not furthered hte position - just stated an opinion again. I gave you a reason why it appears to be bias.

Rhetorically, that these are offered is beyond dispute. — hypericin

Then you should have clarified, huh? :joke:

They absolutely should be allowed to vote.

All I'm hearing from you is "fuck poor people". — Michael

That's an extremely odd response to what he's saying.

Verified citizens should be able to vote. That's just an administrative no brainer. It has nothing to do with attitudes towards poor people. Are you saying that anyone, anywhere, without providing that they're actually legally able to vote, should be able to vote? I just want to get clear before making any further comments.

In other words, this comes down to might makes right. — baker

This makes no sense to me either semantically, conceptually or attempting to figure out some bespoke application. You didn't quote the whole thing though, so maybe you're thinking something you're not quite saying.

The rest is just a child having a problem with being a child, best I can tell.

Of course. — baker

Well, That's definitely not the case In my life, but I wont argue if you think this is common in yours. I understand hte problem it presents and generally, I encounter this in children (sub-13 years old). I tend not to engage much with adults who behave like petulant children, as a general rule.

Where do you live that you have not heard about assertiveness? — baker

I asked you a set of questions which would clarify a crazily ambiguous statement. Your response not only refuses to answer them/clarify but instead takes a pot shot, as If I don't know what "assertiveness" is. Odd.

If all involved would use I-messages, the conflict would either go away, or be shaped into something solvable. Alas, people don't seem to be fond of assertiveness ... — baker

Becuase you have refused to clarify what you're talking about, I have no idea what you're talking about. But the link goes to nothing, fyi.

Some people get to live the Trumpian dream ... — baker

Could you please refrain from ambiguous, senseless drive-by statements and clarify something for me? If you don't want to, please just say that. This exchange is a bit ... eccentric, let's say.

It's not in English and the records are not available online. — baker

Convenient.

Bottomline, my point is that for some -- many -- people, the experience with how the law is practiced is quite dismal, and it's a good example of "my truth" vs. "their truth". — baker

It's not, and I can't see that you've illustrated anything that would move that needle. Some actual information could help?

By the nature of the right, they have little of substance to offer to the general population. — hypericin

what......This seems a patent example of the types of biases being spoken about. There's no reason to think this unless you think that, conceptually, things like fiscal responsibility, military protection, law and order etc.. are not offers to the general pop. You can argue with effectiveness etc... but clearly there's a lot being offered to the general population on paper at the very least.

This "protection" from the internal enemy often takes the form of performative terrorization and abuse, so visible right now. — hypericin

This may explain.

Without getting into much, that's not surprising.

Lol okay ‍♂️

hmm. I guess we live in quite different worlds; metaphorically. That seems wholly inadequate to me and a clear ad hominem continuing.

Thanks for your time.

I said in my previous post that your examples don't seem to have credibility for the concrete evidence of evolution is true. — Corvus

Addressed.

They are about 0.0001% of the plethora of evidence showing evolution by natural selection. — AmadeusD

If you keep making the same mistakes more than once, then it cannot be typos — Corvus

clearly, the same mistake being made continually is habitual. That is how typos work. I am uninterested in your position on tihs. It was a ridiculous thing to bring up and your pretense was horrible.

You seem to be being too sensitive and emotional. — Corvus

I literally just said it's a plain reading. Good god man.

But if you add the words like "fail", "nonsense", "silly", or any of derogatory negative emotional nature — Corvus

"fail" and "nonsense" are objective descriptors. They can be wrong. I'll leave it there, because I already allowed room for that disagreement. Not interesting.

But recently my way of philosophizing is via mostly relying on my own thinking and reasoning — Corvus

Clearly. This may be way you think Evolution isn't true. If you refuse to engage the professionals, your reasoning and thinking is not adequate by definition as you do not have the requisite knowledge to reason on the topic. I admit, I've read almost everything in these papers and gone over prior iterations of the concepts, and I'm still only part way there. There is not a lot to be said for an autodidact about a field which has been accumulative for 150 years or more.

Oh, if we're happy to lay down Lyrics?

It's Alright Ma, I'm Only Bleeding by Bob Dylan
Darkness at the break of noon
Shadows even the silver spoon
The handmade blade, the child’s balloon
Eclipses both the sun and moon
To understand you know too soon
There is no sense in trying

Pointed threats, they bluff with scorn
Suicide remarks are torn
From the fool’s gold mouthpiece the hollow horn
Plays wasted words, proves to warn
That he not busy being born is busy dying

Temptation’s page flies out the door
You follow, find yourself at war
Watch waterfalls of pity roar
You feel to moan but unlike before
You discover that you’d just be one more
Person crying

So don’t fear if you hear
A foreign sound to your ear
It’s alright, Ma, I’m only sighing

As some warn victory, some downfall
Private reasons great or small
Can be seen in the eyes of those that call
To make all that should be killed to crawl
While others say don’t hate nothing at all
Except hatred

Disillusioned words like bullets bark
As human gods aim for their mark
Make everything from toy guns that spark
To flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark
It’s easy to see without looking too far
That not much is really sacred

While preachers preach of evil fates
Teachers teach that knowledge waits
Can lead to hundred-dollar plates
Goodness hides behind its gates
But even the president of the United States
Sometimes must have to stand naked

An’ though the rules of the road have been lodged
It’s only people’s games that you got to dodge
And it’s alright, Ma, I can make it

Advertising signs they con
You into thinking you’re the one
That can do what’s never been done
That can win what’s never been won
Meantime life outside goes on
All around you

You lose yourself, you reappear
You suddenly find you got nothing to fear
Alone you stand with nobody near
When a trembling distant voice, unclear
Startles your sleeping ears to hear
That somebody thinks they really found you

A question in your nerves is lit
Yet you know there is no answer fit
To satisfy, insure you not to quit
To keep it in your mind and not forget
That it is not he or she or them or it
That you belong to

Although the masters make the rules
For the wise men and the fools
I got nothing, Ma, to live up to

For them that must obey authority
That they do not respect in any degree
Who despise their jobs, their destinies
Speak jealously of them that are free
Cultivate their flowers to be
Nothing more than something they invest in

While some on principles baptized
To strict party platform ties
Social clubs in drag disguise
Outsiders they can freely criticize
Tell nothing except who to idolize
And then say God bless him

While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society’s pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That he’s in

But I mean no harm nor put fault
On anyone that lives in a vault
But it’s alright, Ma, if I can’t please him

Old lady judges watch people in pairs
Limited in sex, they dare
To push fake morals, insult and stare
While money doesn’t talk, it swears
Obscenity, who really cares
Propaganda, all is phony

While them that defend what they cannot see
With a killer’s pride, security
It blows the minds most bitterly
For them that think death’s honesty
Won’t fall upon them naturally
Life sometimes must get lonely

My eyes collide head-on with stuffed
Graveyards, false gods, I scuff
At pettiness which plays so rough
Walk upside-down inside handcuffs
Kick my legs to crash it off
Say okay, I have had enough
what else can you show me?

And if my thought-dreams could be seen
They’d probably put my head in a guillotine
But it’s alright, Ma, it’s life, and life only


Imo, probably the great lyric in rock music up there with Desolation Row and Time. And below, my favourite in hip hop

Brother by Shad K
I try to hold some hope in my heart
For these African youths
Coming up where I'm from
Many traps to elude
Surrounded by
Mostly white and affluent dudes
And somehow, you expected to have
Mastered this smooth
Swagger and move
With the right walk, the right talk
Fashion and crews
Souls subtly attacked and abused
And what's funny's being black wasn't cool
Where I'm from til suddenly
You started hearing rap in the school
Hallways
Admist this madness I grew
With knack for amusing through this little skill
For rappin at dudes
An' we all like to laugh at the truth
But when you young and same facts
Pertain to who you rappin em to
Well, I opted not to bring
That to the booth
But after a while, it sort of starts naggin at you
The crazed infatuation with blackness
That trash that gets viewed
And the fact that the tube only showed blacks
Actin the fool and I was watching...
(saturated with negative images and a limited range of
Possibilities is strange...)
And it's sad cause that naturally do
Sort of condition your mind and over time
That's what's attractive to you
So young blacks don't see themselves in
Scholastic pursuits
Or the more practical routes
It's makin tracks or it's hoops
Or God-forbid movin packs for the loot
Even with this music we so limited - it's rap or produce
And that narrow conception of what's black isn't true
Of course, still we feel forced to adapt to this view
Like there's something that you're havin to prove
Now add that to the slew
Of justification the capitalists use
For the new blaxploitation
Many actions excused
In the name of getting cash
That's adversely impactin our youth
With mental slavery, the shackles is loose
And it's hard to cut chains when they attached at the roots
So what the new black activists do
For our freedom is just being them
Do what you're passionate to
Not confined by a sense that you have to disprove
Any stereotypes, so-called facts to refute
Or match any image of blackness
They've established as true
Perhaps we'll break thru the glass ceilings
Shatter the roof and emerge
From these boxes that they have us in cooped
And grow to smash the bold that they casted of you
I'll keep watching...

Yeah, that's probably true. I think most of hte Good recent stuff is of a totally different bent like Fruits Basket or Demon Slayer or something. I will say Death Note was great.

Hmm. I think its a better formulation but almost impossible to practice which is a shame. The best of my understanding could be wholly irrelevant to the reality.

I said nothing of the kind. If you could refrain from personal attacks (ironic) that would be cool.

Totally made up. — Mikie

More like total manipulative bullshit - If he'd been honest, it would be true but wholly irrelevant and stupid as it applied to a single month. Representing almost nothing of significance.

Otherwise, yep, 100% on point.

Most of what's in that passage has been squarely debunked, to my knowledge. Perhaps not to yours. Onward we go.

Again, my experience has been that this is not the case. — baker

Sorry, what hasn't?

I find it is extremely rare to find people who take one's expression of one's feelings, opinions, and experiences as in fact one's expression of one's feelings, opinions, and experiences. Because most people tend to take them as criticism and judgment. — baker

This seems confused. Do you mean its rare to find people who hear other people's opinions and feelings, and read them as such?

Why not simply be assertive? Textbook assertiveness pretty much does away with the majority of the problems brought up in this thread — baker

I cannot understand what you're driving at here, I am sorry. Assertive about what? Which party in the above tension? Being assertive against someone who claims 'my truth' either results in circular nonsense, as, fair enough, this thread became - or violence.

For example, how the traffic police doesn't hunt down and fine people in fancy cars, even when it's clear they've broken the law, but they hunt down people in middle-class cars and poor-people cars for minor transgressions. — baker

What? Is this some weird like early 2000s caricature? Traffic police cannot "hunt down" anyone. They ticket cars which are parked illegally, or automatically ticket cars that run red lights, drive in bus lanes etc...
You can't get around those by having an expensive car my man. The issue is it is more likely for people in shitty cars to break traffic laws. Various reasons for that.

Or how a high politician who was sentenced to a prison sentence can walk out of a prison -- physically wallk out of the building -- and no guard stops him. And this is in a first-world country. — baker

What are you talking about? Not incredulousness, I just have no clue what you're talking about. I do not know of any prison anywhere who would let any inmate walk out in the way you describe.

Or when a judge asks you a question with a double negative and demands you to answer it with only a yes or no; and when you ask for a clarification or answer with a full sentence, he threatens to hold you in contempt of the law. — baker

Are you able to provide it? I have never seen a judge do something similar, and not have their judgment recalled at a later date. It is not a contempt of court to not answer a question. You have every right (in a criminal case. If you're not talking Criminal many other considerations to consider).

If you refuse to sign it, you're taken to the police station where trouble ensues, and you have to hire a lawyer and so on. (And forget about free legal representation. It's virtually impossible to qualify for that here.) — baker

Where do you live? This seems to me a gross misunderstanding of any related practices i've ever come across. Would be interested to see what the policies are. Particularly given your description of a document for signing is Federally illegal in most states I'm aware of.

I hope i'm not coming across dismissive - I'd love to see these things!

Nor is the meaning of the right culturally relative. The right favors and serves the elite, in practice if not always in rhetoric. — hypericin

Hmm.. I am quite unsure this is the case. I think this is the caricature of the right/conservatism. But I also know, for sure, that supporting elites is at least a reckless by product of most right-wing policy that would otherwise be probably quite uncontroversial.

By who? The developers or my then friend? :) — unimportant

By watching the series instead of the films! They don't represent with Anno wanted in the series overall

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/06/movies/evangelion-hideaki-anno.html#:~:text=Despite%20its%20popularity%2C%20%E2%80%9CEvangelion%E2%80%9D,to%20a%20surprisingly%20upbeat%20conclusion.
https://www.animationmagazine.net/2022/11/evangelion-creator-hideaki-anno-offers-insights-into-its-audacious-conclusion/

These two articled seem to be a clear indication he was unsatisfied, which was my initial understanding. I imagine as he came out of his depression he got some perspective.

I can't make it through an episode of GoT. Probably the worst show that more than two of my friends like i've ever watched LOL.

Have you watched Shinjeki no Kyojin?

You claimed there were no examples. I gave them. They are about 0.0001% of the plethora of evidence showing evolution by natural selection.

The claim to ad hominem was just a plain reading of your responses. If you feel that's wrong, that's fine. I accept we see your comments differently. But it seems patently clear to me that picking up on typos (which follow a pattern, generally) and claiming this speaks to my state of mind is an ad hominem, and a pretty abysmal one at that.

If you'd like to do a bit of reading, I presume you will take the requisite several weeks to get comfortable with the concepts in these papers, read them, parse them and then interpret them to your heart's content before commenting:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25030307/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16778047/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5004836/?
https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.4951?
https://rosenberglab.stanford.edu/papers/GoldbergEtAl2018-OxfordBiblioEvolBiol.pdf

Too funny.

1. I get you. 2. I have no idea whether this makes sense, let alone reflects reality. That is certainly not my experience of that type of person, although i grok they are all pretty darn inconsistent in many ways.

Theoretically, not. Practically, it's everything. — baker

Do you mean whoever is the best lawyer wins, regardless of truth? Cause there's no "might" in the law at all until you get activist judiciaries.

You've been given several direct challenges that you've failed to rise to. You're free to see that however you want to. But you are lying about what's occurred and are projecting hte fact that you resile into ad hominems every single time a robust rebuttal is given to you. You then post someone else's irrelevant ideas as if that's somehow going to support the situation.

Once again, when all are giving you the same feedback, it's time to drop the ego and have a think.

These people are the kind of people who would be satisfied if certain people died, regardless of method — baker

You could mean many different things here which would drastic change how to interpret and respond to this. Suffice to say I don't think that's true of probably any politician. I do think several would be unbothered though, but so would most people. It seems some celebrate "worthy" deaths. It sucks. But i'm unsure its relevant here... but again, I'm not sure what you mean so i'm being a bit meager.

To dismiss such considerable numbers of people as "psychopaths" is naive and irresponsible. — baker

You'll note I think you're being extremely unrealistic about the types of people you think are about in large numbers, so there's an empirical divide here.

Traumatic how? In the sense that such a person could be in some way legally responsible for the other's suicide? — baker

No, but that does come up. What I mean is if you're 13 and don't actually understand the consequences of your actions, or are responding to abuse and trauma of your own, you wont actually expect someone to kill themselves. It's dissociative in some sense. So when this person goes a head and kills themselves, it absolutely upends you and brings in emotions you've suppressed etc.. and you now see yourself in ways that are pretty hard to deal with. And to some degree, that's fair - that's how you learn. But in some sense, it could absolutely crack a child. There's no defense in this, I'm just noting the unintended consequences of being an ignorant child at the extremes.

and this at least to some extent informs the way people will treat other people. — baker

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here - is this about how people wont wish others kill themselves if they might end up culpable?

So we agree that the apple isn't part of our experience. It's not much, but it is something. — Ludwig V

Yes, sure. Good stuff.

In that case, perception and hearing are suspect, just because they work at a distance from their objects. — Ludwig V

Yes, I think so. But suspect doesn't mean unreliable, I don't think. IT does mean liable to error, though I couldn't tell you what that would consist in particularly. I just find that gap non-worrying.

For me, it is introspection that is suspect, just because it cannot be wrong and therefore cannot be right — Ludwig V

Ok, i understand this and i think it has some serious force. Let's see where it goes..

Hence I regard "I am in pain" as not a proposition like "I see an apple"'. I go with Wittgenstein in thinking of it as an expression, not a statement. — Ludwig V

Yes, i'd say so. I think, and this is "think", I've not delved - that both are expressions of one's current phenomenal experience. Although, this could just be semantic: I often prefer to say "I look at" an object and then discuss what I see as part of my introspective (i guess?) phenomenal experience.

"Picture" and "apple" are distinct objects. — Ludwig V

Do you mean concepts?

only apple-appropriate behaviour. But that's sufficient. If the experience is thought of as some sort of copy or model, it is needles reduplication. — Ludwig V

Can you say more about this? If what you mean is that the experience causes the appropriate behaviour for when one looks toward that object, I have a lot of questions lol. If it just means that teh senses behave apple-appropriate when looking toward one, that makes total sense to me and is a clever wee statement imo.

It is like "I won the race", that is, it is about outcomes, not processes. — Ludwig V

Is this (and hte prior) suggesting that the model of use of "I see" should simply be when your experience tells you such? If so, I have no issue with that but it allows for hallucinations to be caught under the same banner as what the DRist would call direct awareness (or, i think better: veridical perception). That seems a bit of a shot-in-the-foot. But if this is something the DRist bites on, that's cool - It makes things tricky for my position for sure.

I wasn't suggesting that it would always be partial. — Ludwig V

Ah, okay, sorry. I definitely took more from that than I should have.

the scientific story has no place for the experience of seeing an apple - though it may well find correlates in the way that it has found correlates to the experience of pain. — Ludwig V

I disagree in a significant, but also probably a bit pedantic sense: that is the required end-point of the story and the only one we knew in advance. I do agree that theres something like this:

1. Reflection
2. Reception
3. Transmutation
4. ????????
5. Phenomenal experience

though, so that's fair to point out, I accept it.

"Direct realism" as a theory of perception is coined as a reaction to indirect realism. — Ludwig V

I more-or-less agree with this take, and as you'll have noted, very much respect Banno's approach over most comers - but it boils down to a semantic argument that misses the disagreement at hand imo. He thinks otherwise, and onward we go :P

Appreciate it!

I've provided you with ample evidence of evolution. If you chosen path is to talk about grammar, in the face of my pointing out that typos exist, I can only assume you are attempting to remain ad hominem.

Not to worry.

fwiw, that divide happened here and there was not much of a way to tell who was on each side prior to it occurring.

Our "left" cohort is divided fairly sharply into two camps, as is our "right" cohort:

On the left, we have:
1. the "current" standard - what would cartoonishly be illustrated by piercings, blue hair etc.. and all the beliefs and hopes that tend to come along with that caricature (notice, I am not saying this caricature is right - but the expectations that underlie it do seem to be highly, highly relevant to the cohort I'm discussing) - essentially socialism lite with some un-examined social liberality, unexamined "trust the science" type thinking spurred by having never read the science; and

2. the 90s type of lefty - new-agey, hippie, and generally traditionalist in the sense that things like sex and sexual roles/energies are highly important, self-determination is important, skepticism of "big pharma" and similar concepts, skepticism of any government, rather than just right-wing ones among some other stuff.

You can probably see where the divide was. Camp 1 were literally calling for the assault and death of anti-vax or even vax-skeptical people. Camp 2 were basically saying that the government was a fascist propaganda machine visiting chemical warfare on the population.

I see the merits in both, but as we've discussed elsewhere, these radical positions became the norm during that time. The fear people felt caused them to lose their minds.

On the right, it was pretty much the same. True conservatives who saw emergency legislation as illegitimate and a mandated medical procedure to be ultra vires in every possible way - and then "modern" conservatives who called their dads "hateful cunts" for not wanting the vaccine when they live i the same house.

Again, I see the merits of both - but fear had us literally dobbing in neighbours, assaulting each other and calling for the country to basically be seized by a medica-military style dictatorship due to the emergency. Wild times. It wasn't just the US.

Butting in - thanks for your posts. I've not seen you about, so -- Hi! lol

1. I'm unsure what doesn't make sense about that? If God was real, and was the source of moral fact, it would be implicit in that fact that a non-God universe has no moral facts. As it is, I don't believe there are moral facts besides facts about what people want/don't want to see/hear/be around/experience. I am unique in this on the forum apparently, so I take that.
2. He could have. But he didn't. So where's the lack of sense? You're using a counterfactual to reduce th sense-making of a supposed factual?

I think it is much more reasonable to hold that moral facts, if there are any, are entailed by natural facts, so that you cannot have a universe in which there are such things as rape, torture and murder without those things being morally bad or wrong. — Herg

I do not think this makes sense. Natural facts are not moral facts, by definition. Morality exists within human minds, as far as we know, solely. So it is for humans to dictate morals. That's why the invocation of God had been so strong in the past. People can justify their behaviour without having to justify their emotions. I think.

Is demanding a one-size-fits-all truth the sign of maturity or a kind of childish tantrum in the face of perspectives that don’t fit neatly into the established norms? — Joshs

The former, as far as I'm concerned, without question. It is the child who refuses to accept their position is wrong because they want to hold on to it. It is the religious impulse in the species that grasps onto empirically false beliefs. It is immature historically and individually. The idea that Questioner is putting forward is one which requires stay in intellectually infancy for life, and encouraging others to do the same, never transcending one's emotional reaction to the world around them. It is the stuff of nightmares.

I think here you've moved from the concept of 'truth' to 'norms'. They are not the same, and even if you think they are, we are not discussing this topic in that light. So the above is both slightly disingenuous (as in does not accurate represent what's been said, not suggesting it contradicts what is "true"), and probably so easily answerable its hard to grasp the point of asking, other than to rationalize behaving that way. I really enjoy how most of your replies to anything are open-ended and don't quite land on claims as such. It's cool. But in this case, it comes across as prevarication.

In your rush to push forward that only the objective matters, you forget the person.

I do not forget the person. — Questioner

This doesn't mean anything to anyone but you. So be it. That is exactly what we're discussing, and you've given ample example of exactly why the concept of "my truth" is incoherent, unhelpful and causes people to be worse interlocutors.

it has caused you to be unable to stay on a topic, answer a question directly or do much but post other people's ambiguous, and usually unrelated thoughts in service of belittling those who disagree with you. Its childish, anti-intellectual and likely a result of an emotional defiance to other people's views. Ironic.

Wittgenstein’s — Richard B

I suggest this is probably a sure sign you're in the wrong lane. But that is literally an opinion, I'm not making an argument of any kind - just noting why this wouldn't move someone in my position.

Or then when people literally start to be afraid. — ssu

Certainly this bit is the issue for me. Outside of this forum (well, not quite, but as a matter of comparison to us) there's a fairly stark divide between people who can adequately parse information in front of them and intellectualize and those who cannot. Unfortunately, this seems about a 35/65% split. So most people get scared irrationally. This is usually obvious in their response to whatever scares them.. such is the nature of social media. We used to just never see those reactions.