Comments

  • Why should we have a military that is under federal command?

    The state governments could elect a leader and whenever there is any international threat there would be a meeting to decide what to do about it. We shouldn't have a system in place where someone like Donald Trump can come in out of nowhere and have full power of our armed forces. When the country was founded it made sense to have a president because of the slow speed of communication. There needed to be someone to make a decision and fast. We don't need that anymore. With the advancements of technology, fast communication isn't an issue.

    I don't think there needs to be a single commander of the military. There should be a board in command of the military. That seems like the best way to keep our country protected from the inside to me.
  • Why should we have a military that is under federal command?
    :-} The military is also used for attack, conquest, or invasion, recall, which has little to do with protection. The US-led invasion of Iraq, for instance, served special interests far more than it protected citizens against alleged "weapons of mass destruction". The idea of protection was misused to mislead the citizens.jkop

    Well I believe that the use of the military for unnecessary violence or monetary gain is immoral. Obviously the act of misleading citizens to satisfy special interests is wrong. Arguably depending on the special interests, but I don't enough about the war on Iraq to make claims about it. I certainly think the main focus of our military should be protection.

    A democracy without government merely amounts to "might makes right", in which case all citizens lose their freedoms because (like what Bitter Crank says about "eternal vigilance") they end up being on guard against each other all the time and everywhere.jkop

    I agree, but I also think that we should have our guards up at all times. I'm incredibly concerned about the strengths of our freedoms. I see too much possibility for our government to lose power to a hidden corrupt elitist agenda, and I think that we should divide our military so that it isn't under complete control of one person because that could lead to some very bad situations. A democratic military with the capability of separating and fighting our government if need be.
  • Why should we have a military that is under federal command?
    Shouldn't our healthy democracies be prepared for such situations though? Wouldn't state run militaries be a potential solution?
  • Why should we have a military that is under federal command?
    It might be difficult, but I don't think it would be impossible. If we were to have federally funded state governments that could prevent against a totalitarian state I think that would be the best option. I don't really see how it could take away our ability to defend against external threats either.

    Why should the military focus only on external threats? If we were to ever reach a point where we had to rise up against our national government, there isn't much we could do at this point. With the advancements of weapon technology, most people couldn't really afford to pay for anything that could fight off drones, missiles, tanks or any of the technology the government uses.
  • Is there any value to honesty?
    I think that all those things are self serving. People do good things for others because it produces a good feeling.

    I'm not sure what you mean by the concept of ought-can though. Would you care to elaborate?
  • Is climate change man-made?
    http://thesolutionsproject.org/

    I'm curious what everyone thinks about this
  • Transgenderism and identity
    I see identity as being more fluid than anything else. I am the result of the consciousness that is produced by my brain. My identity is the result of that consciousness trying to make sense of itself in order to achieve a feeling of comfort and familiarity. But I think that attaching your sense of identity to your physical traits is problematic. I have never taken pride in being a man or being white. I take pride in my accomplishments and my ethics. My actions are the indicator of who I am and that is where we should find our identity in my opinion. I think that transgenderism is simply people who don't feel normal trying to do so. But I don't think that anyone feels normal. Just because we can do gender reassignment surgeries doesn't mean we should. However, I don't see any harm in doing them for now. And I am certainly not an expert on the subject. We should see whether or not it actually helps to have the surgery and society should be as accommodating as possible. To answer your question though, yes if I were to do all of that I would still be me because it is the same conciousness in every instance of "me"
  • Transgenderism and Sports
    Does it matter though? Just because men are biologically bigger does that mean they should be separated in sports? I'm sure there are some women that would want to compete on a men's level.
  • The desire to make a beneficial difference in the world
    Do you think it is a waste of time to argue politics?
  • What are you listening to right now?
    The song that got me into philosophy. I don't think there will ever come a point in my life where these lyrics specifically won't resonate with me.

    "Some people think
    That if they go too far
    They'll never get back
    To where the rest of
    Them are
    I might be crazy
    But there's one thing
    I know
    You might be surprised
    At what you find
    When ya go!

    If you been
    Mod-o-fied,
    It's an illusion,
    An yer in between
    Don't you be
    Tarot-fied,
    It's just a lot of nothin',
    So what can it mean?"
  • What are you listening to right now?
    I love the whole concept of this song. A catchy experimental beat with such mediocre cringe-worthy lyrics that perfectly convey the meaning of apathy towards the whole project. A perfect example of people making art exclusively for themselves.
  • How can we justify zoos?
    I don't really understand that point of view. How could tradition be the center of a moral view?
  • How can we justify zoos?
    So what lies at the center of your moral view?
  • How can we justify zoos?
    How is suffering ambiguous but moral agency isn't? I haven't really seen any sort of evidence showing that humans have this mystical thing called moral agency that other animals do not.
  • Meaning of life
    I think we're just arguing semantics here. I'm not saying that we created English straight from scratch. A chair maker doesn't will the chair into existence. They build it piece by piece. If it weren't for our consciousness would our language exist? If it weren't for our species, would the concept of meaning exist?
  • Meaning of life
    If it weren't for us creating language, we wouldn't be able to conceptualize meaning. Meaning is just a word in a language that we created. Therefore we created the concept of meaning.
  • Meaning of life
    I disagree. We may have created the concept of meaning, and we may be able to apply that to our individual lives. That doesn't mean that life as a concept has it's own objective meaning or purpose. Life is as far as I can tell completely random. That isn't necessarily a bad or good thing, it just is. The closest thing to an objective truth about the meaning of human life is to survive and procreate, but that is just one aspect of life. Life is too vague a concept to apply meaning to.
  • The relationship between abortion and mass production and slaughter of animals
    This sounds a little sentimental, no? Attachments in themselves aren't moral or immoral, so I'm not seeing how they can be justification for a moral hierarchy.Heister Eggcart

    The attachments are there. Less attachments would mean less impact if the life were taken away. There would be less consequences to killing a grown woman than her fetus.

    Society dictates the nature of a fetus's being?Heister Eggcart

    I would say that society has the power to take away the life of the fetus so yes.
  • The relationship between abortion and mass production and slaughter of animals
    I see no justifiable reason for human life to be held at a higher importance than all life.

    Because the woman would have other people with emotional attachments in her life and the fetus has not developed many if any such attachments. The fetus has no current place in society. The fetus is dependant on the woman for survival. The fetus has no sense of self awareness before 18 months.

    I'd be interested to see where you got these statistics

    I like most of what you said, but where does quality of life come into play. Couldn't it be morally right for the mother to abort if the life of the mother and the life of the fetus were subject to more suffering as a result of the child being born?

    So you think that this issue is more important to consider from an economic standpoint instead of moral?