I am interested - as I keep saying - in 'justificatory' reasons (aka epistemic reasons) not motivational reasons or explanatory reasons. — Bartricks

Has anyone given a decent response to your question? I don't have the time/energy to review the entire thread, but a quick scan shows this:

Oh do read the OP. Stop just saying stuff. — Bartricks

Again, question begging. Read the OP. — Bartricks

The OP isn't about that, is it? I — Bartricks

OMG. Did you read the OP? It's true by definition. What did I say someone who quetsions that is? Focus on the issue. — Bartricks

Have you gotten even one satisfactory response to your OP? Perhaps I overlooked one, but I don't think so.

Well, in my view and experience Christians are often among the ablest philosophers and some of the very best philosophers have been Christians. — Bartricks

So go out to a Christian forum.

Meanwhile - you still haven't responded to my last post on the AN thread. I'm really curious to see how you re-frame the Problem of Evil when your person is not omnibenevolent.

I am not disagreeing with anything you said. We seem to be getting two issues mixed up.

Issue #1 Does the Bible account for the world as it is?

1. If Genesis is an account of the creation of this place, then this place is approx. 6,000 years old
2. This place is approximately 5.54 billion years old
3. Therefore, Genesis is not an account of the creation of this place — Bartricks

We agree.

Issue #2 How do Christians defend the belief that God created the world.

I am arguing that they are mistaken. I keep saying: I am not asking for an account of why Christians typically believe what they believe. I am asking for a defence of it. — Bartricks

But Christians typically do believe that God created the world. Why? — Bartricks

I'm not seeing much distinction between giving an account of something vs. defending it - in order to defend something you have to first give a clear explanation of what you're defending.

But either way, I'm agreeing with you. The only point I'm trying to make here is that you're highly unlikely to find anyone out here on TPF who will spend much time defending Christian beliefs. That's why I suggest that you go to a Christian forum - I'm sure you can find plenty of smart, informed, religious people who are willing to defend the belief that God created this place.

But perhaps I am wrong and there are passages in the bible that really do commit the Christian to believing that God created this place. — Bartricks

That was my reason for quoting the bible - I'm suggesting that there are such passages. But again - I'm not defending this. If you're looking for someone to explain/defend Christian beliefs you need to speak to people who actually believe this and are willing to defend their beliefs.

Just to repeat myself one more time - apart from your belief in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person (which is not relevant to your main points) I agreed with pretty much everything in your OP.

↪EricH
Re: how the world got here. Why is any explanation owed? — Bartricks

It's not owed. I was merely curious if you had an alternate explanation

Not only did I read it, but I'm basically agreeing with you on one of your main points.

So, there is nothing in the definition of God that commits a Christian to the belief that God created the world. — Bartricks

I agree.

Seems to me, then, that Christians are missing a trick: they are trying to square the genesis account of God's creation of a place with what we understand about how this place - the world - has come to be. But the Genesis account does not seem to be about this place at all. — Bartricks

Here I suggest that you go to a Christian forum to get a more definitive answer to how actual religious Christians resolve this apparent discrepancy.

Does the concept of God - defined as I defined God - entall that God created the world? No. — Bartricks

Agree - but then how did the world get here? Did God (per your definition) set up the conditions that allowed the world to come into existence? Did God permit some other powerful entity to create the world? Or perhaps there is some other explanation?

Does the bible commit a CHristian to believing that God created the world? So far as I can see, no. — Bartricks

I am not a biblical scholar, but I'm pretty sure that in the sentence "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." the phrase "the earth" is referring to the planet Earth that we all live on.

But since I am not a biblical scholar I am not an authoritative source to answer this question. But given that your question is directed at religious Christians, I suggest that you go to the source and pose your question to a religious Christian group. This site seems as good a place as any to find an appropriate place: Top 10 Bible Forums, Discussions and Message Boards

I'm going to ignore my own advice and continue on here.

Do you know what a proponent of the problem of evil is? — Bartricks

The standard definition of the Problem of Evil requires omnibenevolence. Here is from Wikipedia:
The problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil and suffering with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient God

And here is from Stanford:
God must be a person who, at the very least, is very powerful, very knowledgeable, and morally very good
Stanford is using "morally very good" instead of omnibenevolent, but this does not alter the definition of The Problem of Evil. So starting with this definition, Stanford continues thusly:

1. If God exists, then God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.
2. If God is omnipotent, then God has the power to eliminate all evil.
3. If God is omniscient, then God knows when evil exists.
4. If God is morally perfect, then God has the desire to eliminate all evil.
5. Evil exists.
6. If evil exists and God exists, then either God doesn’t have the power to eliminate all evil, or doesn’t know when evil exists, or doesn’t have the desire to eliminate all evil.
7. Therefore, God doesn’t exist.

This is my understanding of what a proponent of The Problem of Evil believes. And as far as I can tell step #4 requires omnibenevolence (or some equivalent) - and step #4 is essential to the arguement.

But you are asserting that your person/being is NOT omnibenevolent.

Why do you think I asked about an omnipotent and omniscient person and left off omnibenevolent?

Do you think it was a mistake? It wasn't. — Bartricks

I have been trying to work within your conceptual framework - to figure out what exactly you are saying. Up to now I have not succeeded at this task.

So before going any further, you have to explain how The Problem of Evil works when your person/being is NOT omnibenevolent. It would be helpful if you could supply any references or links.

If you deny 1, then there's no problem of evil. — Bartricks

And right here is where you are going astray. Here is your "p"

change the world so that it does not visit horrendous evils on innocents — Bartricks

Mr. X is a proponent of the Problem of Evil. Mr X is a person who says that an OOO Being (God) does not exist. But there is nothing inherit in The Problem of Evil that states (or even implies) that Mr X should or must have certain moral beliefs. Mr. X has no opinion as to how this imaginary creature should behave.

Now this is not to say that Mr X is not an anti-natalist. He may or may not be. But his being a proponent of the Problem of Evil has no bearing on his decision.

In other words, your "p" above is false/wrong/incorrect before you even plug it into your equation. You are saying either p must be true or q must be true. And this is simply not the case. As several other people have already noted, both your p and your q are false.

Now, if at this point you still do not understand me - if the above just sounds like gibberish - then I'm afraid you need to work with your hands for a living and stop trying to do this thinking business: it's not for you.

And I also give you the last word in this particular discussion - should you want it.

I did not include omnibenevolence simply because the question was about how this person ought to behave. But I could have included it, it just would have meant rephrasing things. — Bartricks

OK, maybe I made a false assumption there.

But without omnibenevolence there is no Problem of Evil. It could simply be that your your omniscient omnipotent person allows evil to exist for her own reasons which are beyond our powers of comprehension.

I am only saying these things to work within Bartrick's conceptual definitions. I don't take any of this seriously.

No, you don't seem to understand at all.

And you don't seem to understand what a proponent of the problem of evil believes either. — Bartricks

You're right, I don't understand much of what you're saying. I'm trying, but there are many things which are not making sense to me.

Let's start with the definition of The Problem of Evil - I'm going to echo back to you in my own words what I think you're saying. You can tell me if I'm understanding you or not.

Here is your original:
Imagine there is an omnipotent, omniscient, person.

and here is how I would phrase this:
Imagine there is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being. [OOO-Being]

Omnibenevolent was not in your original OP, I think we both agree that your argument requires this - otherwise the "person" could be evil. I also prefer using the word "being" to "person, your use of the word "person" is far afield of any other definition I know of. And I can't imagine any proponent of the problem of evil using the word "person" - they would use the word "God". I don't think this alters what you're saying, but if "person" is essential to your argument, then I need some more details to understand it.

Otherwise, for purposes of this particular discussion I am assuming that the definition/concept of an OOP Being is well formed and makes sense.

Next we have this:
Imagine as well that there is a sensible world, exactly like this one.
this sensible world is an incredibly dangerous place, full of all manner of dangers and just about every conceivable harm.
Well said, I'll go with that.

My argument is addressed to those who believe that the evils of the world constitute evidence that God does not exist. — Bartricks

A proponent of the problem of evil [PPE] believes that it would be wrong for God to invest a world such as this one with innocent life. They point to the evils of the world and conclude that God would have prevented those. That's the basis upon which they believe God does not exist. — Bartricks

It seems like you're using the word "God" interchangeably with OOO Being, I'm OK with either, but if there is some specific context in which you use one over the other I'll need some more details.

Otherwise, I agree with this definition of the Problem of Eveil and what a PPE believes. However I want to expand a bit on this, just to make sure that my understanding is correct. Let's convert this into Ps & Qs.

Let P be the statement "God (an OOP Being) exists."
For purposes of this particular discussion I am assuming that this sentence makes sense and is either true or false.
Let Q be the sentence "The sensible world is free from all evil & violence"

So a PPE says this:
IF P THEN NECESSARILY Q.
NOT Q
Therefore NOT P
Here I'm assuming that P means the same thing as P IS TRUE

This could also be expressed as
IF NOT Q THEN NOT P
NOT Q
Therefore NOT P

Furthermore, there are countless numbers of religious people who acknowledge the evils of the world but still believe in God. These folks have numerous "hacks" to work around this contradiction, e.g., "We cannot understand the workings of God, what appears to be evil is just our mis-understanding the nature of God's goodness", etc, etc.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Before I move on, have I so far described your thinking with reasonable accuracy?

You don't seem to understand the example. — Bartricks

I understand your example. I was trying to use some gentle humor to illustrate that your analogy lacks a certain rigor. But your example is irrelevant to the larger point I'm trying to get across.

Let me try once more to recap what I think you're saying (and what I'm trying to communicate). I'll do this in a conversation between you & Mr. X:

1. [Bartricks]: Imagine there's an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient entity.
2. [Mr. X]: That doesn't make any sense. An omnibenevolent entity would not allow evil & suffering to exist. Until you can resolve this inconsistency I have no reason to believe in such an entity. I might have other good reasons as well, but this is a sufficient reason in of itself.
3. [Bartricks]: Clearly your pointing out this inconsistency in my imaginary entity logically requires that you must have a certain moral position.
4. [Mr. X]: Huh? You're not making any sense. All I'm doing is simply pointing out that you are contradicting yourself back in #1. Why should your errors in basic logic have anything to do with how I live my life? I live by my own morality that has nothing to do with your imaginary entity.

They believe that God would either have altered how the sensible world operates so that it doesn't visit any horrendous evils on the innocents he puts in it, or he would not have put innocent persons into it. — Bartricks

Mr. X does not believe this - he is simply pointing out the inconsistency in the definition of God.. Mr. X is an atheist and he does not incorporate any definition of any imaginary entity or entities into his beliefs.

Before continuing I just wanted to say that I'm glad that we have had an invective free conversation. I believe very strongly (that whenever possible) it is ideas that should be criticized, not people. I hope that we can continue in that vein.

That said . . .

By a proponent of the problem of evil [PPE] I mean someone who thinks that the evils of the world imply God's non-existence. — Bartricks

Yet that is analogous to the view of the person who thinks it would have been wrong for God needlessly to make innocent persons live in this world with all its evils, yet not wrong for them to do so. — Bartricks

I think I finally understand what you're getting at - and here is where we disagree. I am not seeing any connection between being a PPE and your Ps & Qs. Being a PPE does not imply that one should have any opinion on how God should act, let alone that it is wrong of God.

To illustrate, let's take a specific hypothetical example. Let's say there's a person - call him Mr. X - who is an atheist and Mr. X thinks that the problem of evil is proof that She does not exist and that "God" is an imaginary character in various religious books. So what is Mr. X's opinion of AN? Is there any connection between Mr. Xs atheism and AN?

Not that I'm seeing.

Mr. X could be an AN - maybe he feels that there are too many people on the planet and we need to reduce the human population to keep a sustainable civilization.

Or maybe Mr. X is anti-AN. Mr. X loves children (he has 2 kids) and he is confident that humanity will eventually solve these problems.

Or maybe Mr. X has no opinion at all. He's a nihilist and thinks humanity is doomed no matter what happens.

Etc, etc.

- - - - - - - - - - -

As far as Jane inviting James over? Why does she have to serve the glassy sauce? She could serve the spaghetti plain - maybe with a bit of olive oil, a dash of salt, and some parmigiana cheese. Yum. Oh, her cupboard is empty? She can go out to the store and buy some. Oh, she's broke? She could call James and say "Hey James, I'm so sorry, all I have is plain spaghetti but I'd still like you to come over". Or she could call up James and say "Hey lover boy, would mind picking up a jar of ragu on your way over?"

What I was trying to do is show how a proponent of the problem of evil is committed to affirming the truth of a disjunctive moral principle. — Bartricks

I'm not following you here. By "proponent" do you mean a believer in God - and how they attempt to resolve the discrepancy between an omnibenevolent god and the existence of evil? Or are you referring to a non-believer and how they use the discrepancy to dispute/refute the existence of God?

BTW - I acknowledge that this is a dramatically simplified description of a highly complex set of philosophical/religious beliefs/opinions.

I'm guessing that you're referring to believers - but perhaps I'm missing something?

Well, it looks like we're stuck here :angry: :grimace: For clarity's sake I am re-posting your OP:

Imagine there is an omnipotent, omniscient person.

Imagine as well that there is a sensible world, exactly like this one.

And imagine that this omnipotent omniscient person really likes the sensible world, and likes how it operates and does not want to interfere with its operations, with one exception: they want to introduce life into it.

So, they have two desires: a desire to leave the sensible world to operate in its own manner, but also a desire to introduce sentient life into the sensible world.

Morally what ought they to do? Should they frustrate their desire to introduce sentient life into the sensible world? Or should they frustrate their desire to leave the sensible world alone and instead alter it so that it does not pose the risks to the welfare of the innocent life they plan on introducing into it? Or should they satisfy both desires?

I take it to be obvious that they should not satisfy both desires. So, that means that they should either adjust the world so as to make it a safer place, or they should refrain from introducing sentient life into it.

Now turn your attention to yourself. You are not omnipotent, but you do have the power to introduce new sentient life into this sensible world. And you are not omniscient, but you know that this sensible world is an incredibly dangerous place, full of all manner of dangers and just about every conceivable harm.

If the omnipotent, omniscient person wants to keep the world as it is, then they ought to frustrate their desire it invest it with sentient life.

If you are unable to change the world, then you ought to frustrate your desire to introduce new sentient life into it. Yes?

I mean, if the omnipotent, omniscient person ought not to introduce sentient life into the sensible world if they are not going to change the sensible world, then your inability to change the sensible world should also mean that you ought not to introduce sentient life into it. Agree?
- - - - - - - -

Now you say this (I boldfaced the most pertinent part):

For I am not trying to shed light on what an omnipotent person is capable of doing. Rather, I am trying to shed light on the morality of procreation. I am simply using the example of God and the problem of evil to do that, — Bartricks

And here is the point I am trying to convey: If you are using your omnipotent, omniscient person (OO-P) as an example/template to possibly emulate - as the OP clearly states - then your discussion of the properties & behavior of the OO-P is subject to debate - since that is the foundation on which you construct your Ps & Qs. And it is this foundation that doesn't make any sense to me. Just for example (and again from the OP):

So, that means that they [God] should either adjust the world so as to make it a safer place, or they should refrain from introducing sentient life into it.

But as you have clearly stated, the sensible world is neither of these things. So clearly, since the OO-P has done neither of these things, then clearly the OO-P is fine with introducing sentient beings into a sensible world filled with pain & evil. And since the OO-P is fine with this, then (following your reasoning) so should we frail human beings be.

And this is begging the whole LNC thing I mentioned a while back.

So again, your OP has set the basis for this discussion, and I'm sticking with it.

But there is one other alternative. Perhaps the OO-P is not essential to your P & Qs (as you seem to be saying). Then perhaps (ironically at this point) you might open up a new discussion and leave out the OO-P - so the discussion can be focused on your Ps & Qs.

How the blood hell is this anything to do with 'life sucks'? — Bartricks

Agree. I sent a request to Mickie that (if possible) this action be reversed.

For I am not trying to shed light on what an omnipotent person is capable of doing. — Bartricks

But that is exactly what you did in your OP. Right here:

I mean, if the omnipotent, omniscient person ought not to introduce sentient life into the sensible world if they are not going to change the sensible world, then your inability to change the sensible world should also mean that you ought not to introduce sentient life into it. — Bartricks

In other words, if She cannot satisfy both desires, then neither should you. But as you have stated, since She is omnipotent She can do both.

God can do all manner of things that we cannot - including, if she so wishes, making the LNC untrue — Bartricks

It seems to me that you agree that bar tricks is positing the musings of his imagination and trying to pass them off as valid proposals by conflating them with propositional logic. — universeness

Agree

If he intended P or Q = True, — universeness

To me, given the full context, it was clear that this was his intention.

Therefore Q
cannot be applied to completely illogical posits such as non-existent Omnis having human style desires. — universeness

Agree- but sometimes it's fun to embed oneself in his imaginary world and see where it goes.

but he is quite capable of further damaging those people who are already depressives but lack the ability to see through his BS. — universeness

I wouldn't be overly concerned about this - just my 2 cents . . . :smirk:

EDIT EDIT:
Now that I'm thinking about it some more, B is not even asserting POR Q, it seems that he is asserting (sort of) P OR ~P

where P is "leave world as it is & do not introduce sentient beings" and ~P is "change world so it is safe & introduce sentient life". Yeah, yeah P is actually two propositions, but I think you get the basic idea.

I'm a big fan of B's rambling posts - albeit not in a way he appreciates. So I'm not defending his OP. But in this particular narrow case it looks to me your critique is misplaced.

P or Q allows for both P and Q to be false. — universeness

If you were to set up a standard truth table of the 4 permutations then of course you are correct, but here B is also asserting that P or Q = True. I.e. it is an axiom.

Of course, as the OP clearly states, all of this is imaginary:

Imagine there is an omnipotent, omniscient person. — Bartricks

Morally what ought they to do? Should they frustrate their desire to introduce sentient life into the sensible world? Or should they frustrate their desire to leave the sensible world alone and instead alter it so that it does not pose the risks to the welfare of the innocent life they plan on introducing into it? Or should they satisfy both desires?

I take it to be obvious that they should not satisfy both desires. So, that means that they should either adjust the world so as to make it a safer place, or they should refrain from introducing sentient life into it — Bartricks

an omnipotent person is not bound by the lnc — Bartricks

So if She is not bound by LNC, then She can satisfy both desires. Since we frail/fallible human beings are bound by LNC we cannot fathom/understand how this is possible - we simply have to accept it.

Hey B - it's been a while so welcome back. I have two questions

- In the past you have included omnibenevolent as one of the properties your imaginary person could have. I'm curious why this was not included in this particular thought experiment.

- Please correct me if I'm wrong, but in in the past your omniscient omnipotent person was not constrained by LNC. Is that the case for this particular conversation?

John Oliver did a pretty good job last Sunday - as one comment noted: "It would be hilarious if it wasn't tragic."

Nicely put.

This has to be one of the best ripostes ever.

Texas has the death penalty for murder. If a person truly believes that the human zygote and/or embryo is legally a person, then the logical conclusion is that such a person must want the death penalty for any woman convicted of voluntarily terminating a pregnancy by any means.

Thanks - interesting read.

My understanding (misunderstanding?) of Tolstoy is that he would say that the ultimate causes of these events are beyond mankind's comprehension - and that they are inevitable. But what do I know.

As I read this ongoing thread I am reminded of the Epilogues of War and Peace where Tolstoy talks about the origins of the War of 1812. Tolstoy takes task with the historians of his day who tried to explain the war by analyzing personalities and specific events. Giving a clear summary of Tolstoy's analysis is beyond my powers of description - but to give one example he tries to explain that mobilizing 750,000 men from multiple armies to invade Russia was beyond the will of any one person - there are large scale historical forces at work that are beyond our comprehension. I'm sure someone else can explain Tolstoy better.

Would it have been possible to avoid the ongoing horror in Ukraine? If Ukraine had yielded some territory and agreed not to join NATO - would that have led to a long term peace? Or would that have only been a temporary stopgap measure and eventually Russia would have invaded anyway? I don't know - and no one else in this forum can answer that question with any certainty. It's possible that even Putin himself could not answer that question. It's all too depressing.

That's a matter of debate among reductionist holists. Some would argue that you cannot make a hole smaller just by dividing it up,anymore than one can make a pizza larger by cutting it into more slices (although there were some pizzist expansionists in 1920s Austria - and Thickmanstein was briefly one - but it's now been discredited thanks to the work of Stupidda). — Bartricks

Hi Bartricks - I'm pleasantly surprised - you seem to have a sense of humor.

If I had to make a guess, I'd say that you visited NY TImes sometime in the past (could be years ago) and just forgot about it.

I could be wrong, but the way these things usually work is that the website stores the # times you visited - but this is stored on your browser cache. Try clearing your browser cache and see if that works.

“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of light, it was the season of darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair.”

Shoes, shoes - is that all you folks can talk about? What about pipes - don't they deserve a seat at the table of this conversation? :razz:

As a more general principle, my position has always been absolutely clear, i.e., every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners. — Apollodorus

At the risk of hi-jacking the thread, this is great in theory, but in practice very difficult - the key word here is "rightful".

Who owns the Land?

To the topic under discussion. Even granting for the moment that Ukraine was historically part of Russia - does that mean that it is part of Russia forever? I could be wrong, but my hunch is that overwhelming majority of Ukraine people fighting the Russians would disagree.

I admire your efforts to try to get these good folks to think clearly, but you must realize just how extraordinarily hard it is for someone to change these deeply held beliefs.

It's not merely a case of correcting some non-essential belief (e..g. "Gee, I was certain that it was going to rain today - I guess I was wrong").

For deeply religious people, their beliefs form a core part of their identity - to admit some deeply held belief is wrong is not something that comes easy.

But don't let me discourage you. :wink: You may be planting some seeds that will bear fruit some time in the future.

BTW I don't believe Hillary et al are trolls, nor are they stupid.

Possible answers to questions like "does God exist?"

1. Yes
2. No
3. Don't know
3a. Unknown because of limitations in methodology and information
3b. Unknowable i.e. neither is there a method nor will omniscience help in determining the truth. Interesting, oui? — Agent Smith

You omitted another option
4) The question is incoherent. See here earlier in the discussion

Only truth/falsity are relevant to decisions. — Agent Smith
I agree.
And neither Theism nor Atheism are well formed propositions, thus can't have truth values. — ArmChairPhilosopher

Your original P1: "Clapton is god" is a definition and as such is not a well formed proposition and doers not take a truth value.

The word "god" gets defined by P1. "Clapton is god" is short for "I define god as Clapton." — ArmChairPhilosopher

OK. So we can re-phrase your syllogism to this:

P1: ArmChairPhilosopher defines/uses the word "god" to be equivalent to the word "Clapton".
P2: ArmChairPhilosopher (along with most folks) uses the word "Clapton" to refer to a existing person - in this case a well known English musician.
P3: When ArmChairPhilosopher uses the word "god" it is understood that (s)he is referring to the well known existing English musician.

This is a well formed syllogism. Both P1 & P2 are true propositions and P3 logically follows from P1 & P2. But this is obviously very different from your original syllogism.

On top of this you are using lower case "god" - not upper case "God" - and this whole conversation is about the upper case version. So even if you could reformulate your original P1 & P2 into expressing your original conclusion (P3), this particular line of reasoning has no relevance to the actual topic under discussion.

P1: Clapton is god.
P2: Clapton exists. (And is real and there is evidence for that.)
C: God exists.
Pretty undeniable, don't you think? — ArmChairPhilosopher

Words have meanings. The word "god" in P1 is not defined - and thus we cannot draw any conclusions from that statement. Consider these alternates:

P1: Clapton is a four sided triangle.
P2: Clapton exists. (And is real and there is evidence for that.)
C: Four sided triangles exist.

P1: Clapton is a fTyrtydfr.
P2: Clapton exists. (And is real and there is evidence for that.)
C: fTyrtydfr exists.

BTW - Big fan of Clapton's playing in Cream - Disraeli Gears, etc

The sneer of the peon. — Bartricks

Thank you for the nice compliment.

I've been following this conversation along with many others that cover similar territory and I have several questions to all parties -

If "self creation" is possible - OR - if it is not possible - either way does that change how I should live my life? Should I give my worldly possessions to charity and live a life of penance? Should I leave my spouse and spend all my money on booze & hookers? Does this affect how I should feel about the Ukraine situation? Etc?

Also (and related) - why is this topic so important that you spend hours debating it? If this is merely for fun and/or intellectual stimulation I get it - there's no harm done and there are many worse ways of spending your time. But given the level of intensity and vitriol in these conversations, it appears that this topic is really important to people. Why? What difference does it make?

killing thousands of people all over the world for the sake of national security — FreeEmotion

There is no denying this. But regardless of US bad actions around the world, I'm not seeing how getting my representatives to read Chomsky will help unravel the current ongoing horror show in Ukraine.

What I'm not seeing in this thread are any possible path for ending this war.

Ukraine surrendering? Not gonna happen.
Russia declaring "victory" and going home? Not gonna happen.
Regime change in Russia? Not gonna happen.
Other?

I would gladly be wrong, but it looks like any "solution" is going to be determined on the battlefield.

I've been lurking in this thread for a while now - and following with dismay the events in Ukraine. I may not agree with everything you have been saying, but I think I get the gist of it.

Please do not take this as a personal critique of your positions, but what I have not seen from you is a "what should we do" plan of action (and apologies if you have specified this and I missed it).

I live in a liberal district in US. What should I encourage my senators/representatives to do? Should I tell them to vote against giving further aid to Ukraine? Should I write a letter to Biden saying that he should encourage Ukraine to surrender to avoid further death & destruction?

What we can't really show the floaters to others. Only accounts of people who've experienced them. — L'éléphant

The reason this caught my attention is that I was at my optometrist this week and the aide checking my eyes said (in effect) "Hey, I see you've got a floater there".

Of course no one walks around with the kind of equipment needed to spot floaters :wink: - and - this does not affect your larger point.