if you do not want abortions (and no one thinks they are a good thing worth getting pregnant for), if you value the unborn highly as most pregnant women do and most men do, then you should value the women who carry them and the children that they become. You cannot reasonably make them other peoples risk, consequence, fault, responsibility, problem, and also complain about how they deal with their problems. A society that does not care for the child and the mother has no standing from which to moralise about them, any more than a society that drives women into prostitution has any standing from which to moralise about prostitutes. — unenlightened

:up:

Shutting down international travel simply doesn't have the crazy affects that you describe, especially temporarily. — boethius

Well surely if "international travel" includes "international trade" then I think those "crazy affects" are almost certain...eventually (you are right that temporary measures may not have a huge impact, but if temporary is 1 year or more, it seems that more than 3% of the worlds population would die as a result (about 34 countries are dependent on food imports, for example).

There's nothing especially good about, nor especially bad about me. I'm just trying to remain sane when every part of me is drifting into insanity. — Wheatley

I apologize if it seems I am being flippant about real problems, but this is interesting to me...

Is any aspect of "drifting into insanity" fun, novel, interesting, or exciting? The pink floyd lyrics remind me of the lengths I have gone in life to briefly escape "sanity" (in my younger days anyway). Alcohol never seemed to have much affect...I could (can) drink to the point of physical changes (slurring, stumbling, or sleeping), but there is never any sort of mental escape (it does not reduce inhibitions or cause me to act in ways I would not act sober).

So when I did "things" that actually caused me to forget myself (briefly), it was always fun, and after the fact, it was always interesting to consider the huge change in mindset.

I guess where I am going with this is just to ask, is there any aspect of the drift to insanity that is not scary and terrible?

Not at all. It would be like if drunk driving rates were to skyrocket in this country and you saw me getting into my car drunk; could I just tell you: "well MOST people drive drunk, it's fine!" — BitconnectCarlos

That doesn't make it "fine". However, if 70% of the population was drinking and driving I would think it ridiculous to think I am going to solve (even partially) that problem by saying, "hey, why don't all you people stop drunk driving and act right!"

You can literally educate yourself for free on this topic. There's a billion resources and it's vastly relevant to your life if you're not already rich and you're concerned about your financial well-being. — BitconnectCarlos

:rofl: well f*ck you too :razz:

Thanks for the financial tips. If becoming a wealthy mo fo in the top 1% ever become a life goal of mine, I will remember to check out this thread :up:

You seem like a good candidate for this question. I don't know if you're from the states here but even if you're not, you might could answer this question, since you're an atheist. Do you feel resentful that America has In God We Trust on our currency? — 3017amen

Resentful...a bit severe, but probably, yes, a little.

Are you resentful that it was not added to our currency until 1956?

There is a little irony in your parody.!

Are you thinking you could be the majority? — 3017amen

You may want to re-read my "parody"? It never even suggests atheists are the majority? I am not sure what "irony" you are referring to either?

Greetings!

I'm not a Bill O' Reilly fan by any stretch. If anything, though I'm not sure of this, he's probably a far-right religious person who is more aligned with Fundamentalism than not. Nonetheless, his point is well taken. Or, at least he is raising the question that appears to be a valid one. He is suggesting that the majority of Atheists are angry.

As a Christian Existentialist (or Liberal-moderate Christian if you prefer) myself, my observation has been, that much like the Fundy, the typical Atheist appears to be angry all the time. Even Einstein commented on that prevailing thought process in so many words, here: — 3017amen

Hmmm, well:

Greetings!

I'm not a Richard Dawkins fan by any stretch. If anything, though I'm not sure of this, he probably had some personally traumatic experience with religion that influences his perspective. Nonetheless, his point is well taken. Or, at least he is raising the question that appears to be a valid one. He is suggesting that the majority of religious people are delusional.

As an atheist (or agnostic atheist if you prefer) myself, my observation has been that, much like someone who is detached from reality, the typical religious person is delusional all the time. Even Einstein commented on that prevailing thought process in so many words, here:

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Maybe. I've not enough reliable true information at my fingertips in order to draw such a conclusion. — creativesoul

Hmmm, I was just basing it on her running a VERY anti-billionaire campaign. There is only one other anti-billionaire candidate.

Namely, I do not know what will be the determining factor guiding Warren's decision, one way or the other. — creativesoul

Well that is fair. We have no reason to know for sure what will drive her decision. But if we look at her decision based on the ideology of the campaign she has been running for the last year, we can conclude that she is giving up on deeply held beliefs for the sake of a personal dislike (or the drive for personal glory, but she can't possibly still think she has a chance)...I am happy to use a word like hypocrite for such actions.

it showed beyond all reasonable doubt that the primary motivating factor for her was not 'fixing the broken/rigged system'. — creativesoul

A good point. As you say, it shows her primary motivators are not really what she talks about when campaigning...which is strange.

Clinton has ties to the 2008 financial scam. She also had their(the financial sector) full support... as does president Trump... as did president Obama... as did president Bush Jr... as did president Clinton... as did president Bush Sr... as did Ronald Reagan...

...as does vice-president Biden... — creativesoul

:up: So you understand my confusion at Warren's efforts to hinder Bernie's chances of success (and therefor her own supposedly deeply held beliefs' and goals' chances of success).

A band of sisters... perhaps? — creativesoul

That seems a fair assessment...but for this cycle I would complain that her campaign was far more focused on economic equality than the struggles of women (she definitely touches on women's issues...but I would struggle to identify anything but economics as her driving ideology).

Biden is not a sister though. — creativesoul

Yep, she doesn't have the band of sisters option this time. It will be interesting to see what she does...but disappointment is the new normal for leftist politics in this country (which is WAY better than my previous feelings of no hope at all. In recent years, I can at least get excited that things might change, but so far it has only resulted in disappointment).

I am saying is that financial responsibility is your responsibility first and foremost. — BitconnectCarlos

And THE FACT that MOST people are NOT financially responsible doesn't affect that opinion at all?

You seem to support Social Security, which exists exactly because the government realized that people would NOT be financially responsible unless they are forced.

I've already had a talk like this with Pfhorrest and I refuse to hold him up as a perfect example of personal fiscal responsibility. — BitconnectCarlos

It is not about him being a perfect example. It is about the fact that he is FAR more responsible than most.

Fiscal responsibility is a basic requirement of adulthood and it's a shame they don't really teach it in school. — BitconnectCarlos

Uh, they would never teach that in school because it would slow the economy as people buy less stuff...right?

I took that as complimentary. — Pfhorrest

Good. I certainly meant to portray your position as admirable.

And the power to determine the pay and rent and interest that affects that situation is far more in the hands of the wealth people who own the businesses and housing and money than the poor people who need to work at and live in and borrow them. — Pfhorrest

Indeed. I am in Orange County. The NIMBYism is rampant.

I've yet to see anything akin to a "grand unified theory" or humor, or how humor relates to art and aesthetics — IvoryBlackBishop

If we say all humor is connected to the concept of irony, does that get us anywhere? That is the only "universal" I can think of related to humor. And even that is questionable...although I can't think of any humor that doesn't fit. Even peek-a-boo elicits a hearty laugh from babies who did not expect that face to come out of nowhere.

I’m still not sure I will be able to retire at all, never mind “and then some”, off of even twice a median income.

(This is reinforcing your point, not arguing against it). — Pfhorrest

Well, I was trying to use you as a rare example of someone who could comfortably retire off of a normal income, so I appreciate your clarification that this is still going to be a challenge (and agree that makes my point stronger). I have actually been amazed reading your financial situation in other threads. I am confident that less than 10% of people in this country are anywhere near as a financially careful. I thought I kept my spending low, but you showed me it could be lower (although I haven't found a deal on rent yet). And this all leads to me being rather perplexed when someone asks "why don't people just save up for a comfortable retirement?"

I understand public services are good, but the freedom provided when you have enough money to retire and then some is much preferable IMO. — BitconnectCarlos

So what if only 70% of the population can achieve that? What if only 10% of the population can achieve that?

I would estimate that no more than 40% of Americans retire with "and then some". What do you think the percentage is? There are very few extremely financially responsible people out there like @Pfhorrest. (someone who can retire and then some off of a median income). If most people are NOT financially responsible it seems unfair (and wrong?) to suggest that everyone should be.

It's nice that you believe that but we're talking about the world as it is. When american taxpayers have more money in their pockets after taxes that helps them attain freedom and security. — BitconnectCarlos

When Europeans have adequate health care and education provided to ALL of their citizens that helps them attain freedom and security.

Am I right? Or are you? Or are we both right from some perspective? Obviously, it must be the last one, which makes statements like this entirely worthless...right?

There are studies that claim the US spends twice as much on healthcare and performs less well in medical outcomes compared to countries such as the Netherlands. — praxis

Well if you look at life expectancy we are WAY down the list. Cuba is still beating the USA (I think we spend 10 times what they do). Although healthcare can't take all the blame, the way we prove our freedom by getting super fat probably contributes.

In regard to paid leave... — praxis

Damn. If I was planning to have children I would not be raising them in this country :groan:

There's no way Obama or Hillary or Warren lend support to Bernie. No way. No how. — creativesoul

Well that is easy for Obama and Hillary. Warren, on the other hand, would be a complete hypocrite. "Taking down the billionaires is important, but I don't really like Bernie" :yikes:

This may be why she is sticking it out for the super-delegates...she knows she can't win, but if she drops out, she MUST endorse Bernie or everything she stood for was a lie.

jhj

If one were to choose 1000 people at random...and put my take to them along with the questions:

Is this an agnostic position?

Is this an atheistic position?

...I dare guess 99% or more would respond "YES" to the first...and "NO" to the second. — Frank Apisa

I don't think it would be 99%, but probably high. However, it reminds of a riddle we used as kids:

What is the capitol of Kentucky, Louisville (pronounced Lew-iss-ville) or Louisville (pronounced Lew-ee-ville)?

Almost everyone says #2 (Lew-ee-ville). Unfortunately, the right answer is Frankfort.

So what kind of personality profile is this? — schopenhauer1

Dang, seems difficult to nail down. It seems to be completely natural (the tendency to accept opinions we agree with, without being critical), so it almost seems we should be looking at the small percent of people that value critical assessment (in nearly all cases, most seem to value it occasionally).

Is there a difference between this kind of willful manipulation and the plain old self-imposed limitations of what sources and opinions we wish to follow? — schopenhauer1

I would think the "willful manipulation" is a natural result. People take advantage of people's tendencies. Similar to online advertising lining up with my history of searches and purchases. There is also probably a fair amount of non-willful manipulation. Just algorithms sharing opinions I am likely to agree with...this just has the negative effect of making my opinions FEEL more accurate.

If its the former, are these subtle lies or outeageous ones? — schopenhauer1

I would think some subtle, some outrageous, and many that the speaker (or poster/ or re-poster) actually believed to be true (so not lies, just wrong).

If its outrageous ones, I ask again, what is the personality profile of this hapless non critically discerning person? — schopenhauer1

As you can tell from above, I am unsure, but one common thread between these "hapless" individuals would seem to be persistent ignorance. Notice this does not mean uneducated, although, often, that is a start. It is more about a lack of desire to continue learning, or even worse, no need to learn because they know all the important bits :roll:.

Most of the people who are quick to accept the outrageous lies are EXACTLY the type of person who never fact checks anything. I am sure you know the type (they are everywhere)...they actually get mad when I use google to confirm what they are saying. They view it as an insult, and assume I think they are lying. On the other hand, I get excited when people get their phone out to fact check my words. "Wow, you are actually interested, great! Odds are my facts and figures are merely estimates based on memory so thank you, let's make sure."

I both agree and don't. There will be more mullah and goods to go around per capita; a 2% increase in a flash. The upfall is also that retired, i.e. conventionally and economically non-contributing members go out; that way the production is at a steady rate, and relative wealth will grow.

It is true that fear may induce public panic. Stores will be ransacked. No food available. Farmers refuse to truck their stuff to town. Massive starvation, manier people die from malnutrition, than from New Coronavirus. STealing, and eating other people's loved pets becomes a fashion, and cannibalism is not out either, if things get really bad.

The funeral home industry will strive. So will the doomsday prophet industry. Doomsday prophets and street preachers have been industriously preaching the end of the world, I think since the world began. — god must be atheist

Seems reasonable :up:

I'm getting hungry just re-reading what I've so far written. Cheers, off to the kitchen. — god must be atheist

Hopefully it was the talk of stores without food that inspired your hunger and not the talk of cannibalism :yikes:

...those who throw food away as soon as it reaches the "best by" date...
— ZhouBoTong

So people who like higher quality foods?

:rofl: — creativesoul

Haha, yes...and believe that at 11:59pm the food is "high quality" but 2 minutes later it is no longer of the same "high quality" because of a date stamped on the box.

Two percent isn't low. I'd say flu's 0.1% is low. — Michael

Well, at the risk of sounding like an uncaring ass, I just want to defend @god must be atheist's point for a bit (correct if me if what I am saying has nothing to do with your point).

If 2% of the population of every country on earth died TOMORROW following the pattern of coronavirus deaths...it seems it would slightly HELP the world's economy (per capita)? Please correct me where wrong (I am interested, and open to the idea that I am very wrong here). It seems most of the 2% will be retired people. So it is just the sadness, trauma, and FEAR that will truly be a problem. FEAR will lead to shutting down of boarders or people not going to work. If the world economy significantly slows, far more than 2% will die as a result over the coming decades.

Who is this hapless demographic that gets duped by Facebook/social media content and ads? Are there really people that look at this and go "Ah, that's gotta be true because I saw it on Facebook!". I guess there is, but I'm wondering how ignorant one must really want to be to believe everything because it's on social media. I'm imagining thousands of little old ladies that have been introduced to social media and don't know that anyone can post anything, and they are constantly saying "Oh my!". It just doesn't make sense who is being manipulated whether by foreign or internal trolls. — schopenhauer1

Probably the same type of people that choose their car insurance based on television commercials...oh, and of course those who throw food away as soon as it reaches the "best by" date...oh, and the anti-vaxers...this is sort of fun, I wonder how many I could come up with, haha (and would I eventually hit one that reveals my own gullibility? :yikes:)

Both of my parents fit that description. — Pfhorrest

Oooh, my parents don't do social media much, but my dad will definitely believe anything his friends tell him (no matter how glaring their lack of expertise is). My mom is a bit more critical of new info.

However, if one frames the question as: what is the percent likelihood of god existing? then it's theoretically possible to arrive at an "accurate" value. — TheMadFool

I agree with what you were saying about crowd knowledge only working in certain scenarios. However, since the question above will never be measurable, I would want to see crowd wisdom work in many scenarios where we then can measure the results (and it works every time) before I would believe the results of something like this. First, we should do like a thousand trials where the results can be analyzed...things like, "what is the diameter of the earth, sun, mars, jupiter, etc? What is the mass of those same things?" Since science can determine these answers, but less than 1% of the population actually knows the answers, I think this would be a good way to confirm the theory. And I am guessing (no clue for sure) that the more extreme and unknown the topic, the less accurate crowd knowledge will be (I bet crowd wisdom gets much closer to the diameter of earth than it does to the diameter of the milky way, which will be more flawed than the diameter of the universe).

I think we will learn that a group of "experts" has much more "crowd wisdom" than just some random sample of the population.

Three, we need a genuine working class party -- not slightly more and slightly less conservative parties serving the interest of the ruling class. — Bitter Crank

As far as I can tell, @Wayfarer's argument is that America has moved so far right over the last few decades, that they don't want this. I tend to disagree, and would point out that most people under 40 don't seem to have an automatic problem because the word "socialism" was mentioned (hell Tucker Carlson was getting in trouble for advocating socialist ideas).

If (probably a big if) Bernie wins, does that imply that the Democrat party could become an actual force for the working class? (again, I suppose FDR was on the right track)

This means taxing wealth at a high rate. Maybe it should be enshrined in the constitution, so it can't be changed easily. — Bitter Crank

Sounds wonderful, but there will need to be a massive change to the supreme court's view of things. It is amazing to look at the 1940s through 1960s compared to today. WAY higher taxes on the top bracket, and WAY fewer complaints about taxes being too high...then one guy scribbles on a napkin and suddenly....?!?! I am with FDR, 100% tax on everything over $25,000 (in his day...I think that is more like $500,000 today) - "No person should try, or be allowed, to get rich out of this program; and the principle of tax payment in accordance with ability to pay should be constantly before our eyes to guide our legislation." - FDR speech to Congress in 1941, seems like a different country :grimace:

The Sunrise Movement and other large, national organizations and movements is interesting and all of that, but I think I'd be more comfortable locally -- and that's kind of the point of the article anyway, in the sense that this is where everything starts. — Xtrix

I far prefer local pushes to get the vote out over things like The Sunrise Movement (despite me agreeing with their overall aims). Large federal lobbying pushes require resources that the masses don't have access to, so they always seem to only represent a tiny fraction of the population (I understand lobbying is supposedly VERY democratic, but it just seems to limit the power of my vote so...?). While I agree with the Sunrise Movement's goals, they are using methods similar to the NRA or whatever the hell Grover Norquist's no tax increase organization is called.

being interested, informed, and willing to have the conversations with other people in a rational way, are all necessary. Even THAT would be sufficient to change things, too, because in that case we'd be voting very differently. Unfortunately we're being indoctrinated in all kinds of ways, and having our consent "manufactured," to a large degree. How to overcome this is an interesting topic. — Xtrix

:up:

No one who was caught off-guard by underestimating voter turnout or Trump's ability to secure enough support to beat Clinton will allow that shit to happen again, assuming that their worldview is much the same as it was four years back. Give Sanders the national spotlight. Place him on stage with Donald John Trump, and watch school start for all those willing to learn.

The most pleasant slaughter that one may ever see.

I cannot wait. — creativesoul

Well that all sounds reasonable and I certainly hope you are right. I suppose I appreciate the optimism either way :smile: And no matter what a person's political beliefs are, a Trump vs Sanders debate should sound like a lot of fun :grin:

I may have gone a bit long, and my tone can get a bit rude when I am arguing. But you are actually representing the opinion I am quite interested in for this election. I realize some of my questions seem rhetorical or sarcastic (and some may be :grimace:), but mostly I am interested in your response.

That’s the kind of cynicism that everyone else here is showing. — Wayfarer

Wait, cynicism? You mean reality? I had no goal there, other than to remind you of a fact. Do you disagree? Hoover promised "a chicken in every pot". These "promises" are not really meant to be taken literally.

Ironic, considering how Sanders is running for the Idealist Party. — Wayfarer

"Idealist party" contains the word "ideal", which is pretty much "not real" by definition...unless you can point me toward perfection? Reminds me of what I said about a "direction" for the country, not some sudden massive change.

Right, because they can’t vote for Sanders. — Wayfarer

Of course they can. They are making strong implications that they won't. Otherwise, why the fear that he won't beat Trump? People aren't actually counting on swaying Republican voters, right? (yes, yes, Bloomberg and Klobuchar are trying to do exactly that - but do you really think either of them would beat trump? if so why?)

Like I said, I would *love* to see Sanders win. I would gladly eat my words or parade around the city with a sandwich board saying WRONG ABOUT SANDERS. So, get in touch later. ;-) — Wayfarer

I thought it was clear by now (correct me where wrong) that if there is a very high voter turnout, the Democrats win. Typically, Republicans actually show up to vote at higher rates. Do you really think Biden or Bloomberg are going to see high voter turnout? I am not saying Bernie is better, but it seems ridiculous to suggest that any of the other Democrat candidates will inspire more Democrats to show up and vote. Who are you suggesting is the candidate (or really you seem to be implying candidates plural) that will have more support than Bernie? Bernie will DEFINITELY get people to show up to vote that will otherwise just sit at home (and I am fairly comfortable to say he will get far more typical no-shows to vote). The question is how many moderate Dems will not show up if Bernie is the candidate?

And just to point out, Bloomberg would be the one candidate I would actually consider NOT voting for (I probably still would to at least send the message that I disagree with the direction of the last 4 years - but I would have lost hope that our country wants to be being anything better than a haven for the super wealthy). He seems the perfect choice for those who like everything about Trump, except that he is fat and Republican.

There's a good Atlantic article about this under "political hobbyism." Very interesting. Very scary, too. — Xtrix

That was interesting. There is a lot in there I agree with. But they go much farther than I...I just want a more interested voter (not just interested in having their opinions agreed with). They want everyone to actually engage with their community. I am way too socially uncomfortable for that sort of behavior :grimace: But I can appreciate its usefulness and support those actions when I can. I can admit that I would definitely count as a "hobbyist" based on their description.

They would NEVER do this otherwise, in any other domain. — Xtrix

I was about to entirely agree, but then I thought of sports. I think most people think they could coach their favorite team better than the current manager (except Liverpool FC, everyone loves Klopp).

I agree that people don't do it with things like physics, but only if it stays academic. As soon as it is political, all opinions are equal (READING YOUR POST A BIT FURTHER, I THINK THIS WAS EXACTLY YOUR POINT). And this idea (all opinions are equal) is only being drilled in more in our schools these days.

What about a simple "I don't know," or "tell me more about that"? I think it's because, sadly, MOST of this repeating of an opinion that Rush Limbaugh formulated often passes as intelligent, and most people don't even know enough or follow things closely enough to know that it's complete nonsense. — Xtrix

Sounds right to me.

So these people get away with it, over and over, in their own social circles and social media bubbles, reinforcing what they believe and convinced that they have a lock on truth and knowledge -- when in reality, they're parroting propaganda. — Xtrix

Ugh, indeed. And with the dawn of social media, each person spewing out their opinion is "evidence" for the next ignoramus.

This happens on the left as well, of course. — Xtrix

Indeed. I have friends that I am happy vote similar to myself, but they have not thought their position through any more than the "deplorables" they rant against.

But the hilarious part is that BOTH sides will accuse the other of this phenomenon -- and both are correct. Yet they can never see it in themselves or from their own "tribe." It's staggering. — Xtrix

I want to laugh and agree (in fact, mentally, I did both), but I probably have some blind spots of my own, so I won't be too vocal :smile:.

I think this is another reason to try and discourage people from labeling themselves "liberal" or "conservative," — Xtrix

Haha, dang. I have spent the 5-10 years trying to convince my parents to do just that (not too successful).

A little long winded. I digress. — Xtrix

Well as someone who tends to get too long almost every post, no problem. And thanks for the article.

I think NOS4A2 doesn't care much about any of these details. He'll move on to the next Limbaugh talking point like "socialism always fails (even though the word is meaningless)", wonderful historical facts like "Charles I created the Post Office," or else put on his Nostradamus hat and foresee the collapse of the Chinese economy because they're too "mercantile."

I wouldn't put in much more effort. — Xtrix

Fair enough. I do try to ignore most of it, but every now and then it is pretty easy to do a quick refutation, so it feels worth the minor effort. And yes, admitting that the meaning of socialism is unclear while maintaining that it is terrible, seems outside the realm of reason...so probably not a point worth engaging with.

The corporate tax rates in Denmark or Sweden are not that high, but Bernie wants to raise it to 35%. — NOS4A2

Corporate tax rates were above 45% from just after WW2 until Reagan. Even then they were around 35% until 3 years ago. And America had a stronger economy relative to the world in those days so a high corporate tax rate must be a good thing??

I actually think it is way more complicated than that (in fact, when corporate taxes were at 35%, the EFFECTIVE corporate tax rate was below 20%). So raising the corporate tax rate back to where it was 3 years ago (which was EFFECTIVELY the same as it is today) does not seem to be a big issue??

I think you're exactly right: for millions of Americans, it's not the details. I don't think many people are all that informed. They voted for Obama because he was a charismatic guy, they voted for Trump because they liked a "tough guy" saying things they couldn't say and to piss off the "liberals," they voted for Bush because he was a guy they wanted to have a beer with, etc. If they like the person and they like what he or she says, then that's usually enough. I think Bernie does very well on both counts. — Xtrix

Exactly right. While Trump has increased the average american's interest in politics (finding that silver lining where I can), it does not mean that people are willing to do serious policy research. Just that they are willing to spend some of their entertainment hours listening to people give their opinions on politics (all 24 hour new stations).

So I find it very weird when people say someone is un-electable due to their economic policies. Oh, people understand economics now do they?!? They all just point to whatever current or historical example proves their point, and ignore every example that is counter to their argument (the smart ones, the less informed don't even know about the counter examples and just eat up each example as 100% proof they are right).

Lets us work on that problem and see how much we can eliminate that in our lives. Some people may not like this but eliminating it in our lives, involves not associating with people who are not willing to think about what they think and lack an appreciation of virtues. Creating some social pressure on everyone to make the effort to strive for excellence and creating a support group that supports that effort. — Athena

I appreciate your optimism here, and I will try to keep an open mind. And I certainly was not suggesting that people like us stop engaging with philosophy. We like it...and it seems beneficial too :smile:

I guess you have not had the same experiences as I when it comes to talking philosophy with other people. I have exactly one friend, and one family member who are somewhat comfortable discussing this stuff. If you think people are comfortable try this, ask them why they identify with whatever political party they identity with. Some will already be uncomfortable, but many will answer. Then ask them "why" they believe those reasons are true. More will get upset and drop out, but for those who don't, ask "why" they believe those reasons...and so on. You don't have to argue at all. Just keep going deeper and ask them to explain their thoughts...most will get angry and end the discussion.

I started getting more excited about philosophy when I met people who challenged my beliefs and forced me to go 6 or 7 "why's" deep into beliefs (each time they asked further, I realized they were justified in asking further!). But normal people hate this crap...so much so that they cannot believe I am actually interested and I must just be messing with them.

I am accused of being offensive, and condescending and other unpleasant things. — Athena

I get that a lot too (well around here I am too uneducated to be accused of condescension, but I get it a lot in non-online life). I think it tends to happen when I think I am just being matter-of-fact. From my experience with you so far, you just come across as someone who is interested in the topic and likes to argue their opinion (we can recognize our own). I know a lot of the time I upset people is when I am getting excited about an argument and sort of forget the other person's perspective :grimace:

There is a saying, "Do not argue with ignorance". To take care of ourselves, we need to avoid these people except maybe as friends to do simple things with, like go to a movie or play cards. — Athena

Precisely. Just because they have very little willingness (or ability in some of the cases you may be describing) to engage with philosophy, doesn't mean they can't enhance other areas of my life (and hopefully the other way around too, so I am not completely selfish).

For discussions, we need to find people who are thrilled to shared thoughts and have good virtues. — Athena

Agreed, that would be ideal.

We have not educated for this since 1958, — Athena

Well I was born in 1981, so even my parents were educated in the 1960s and 1970s. While I agree it would be helpful for education to be more in line with what you are describing, I would not expect massive changes in people's mindsets. However, as I have only lived in the post 1950s America (with a god on the money and in the pledge of allegiance), perhaps I am wrong. I am certainly happy to try.

In my grandmother's day well-bred women were closer to 30 years old before marriage and having children and they did not have sex outside of marriage. Can you think of any benefits for that? — Athena

I can think of benefits and downsides. However, I would think in your grandma's day the vast majority of women were married much sooner than 30? But I think you are referring to the upper classes so that seems plausible. When was your grandma born (if you don't mind me asking)? Just trying to pin down the time period. Was she a flapper?

Dang, I have to run. I only responded to about half of your post. I should get to the rest tomorrow.

So Bernie Sanders, who wants free public health care and higher education, the forgiveness of student loans, and paying for all of this by taxing wealthy corporations, is going to be mercilessly skewered as communist and 'anti-growth' by the Republicans. It's not true, but one of the sad facts about Trumpworld is that facts don't matter. . — Wayfarer

Do we even sort-of expect Presidents to live up to their campaign promises? I mean, none of them do.

Aren't people voting for Bernie because of the direction they HOPE it puts the country on? It is about sending a message, not actually believing the USA will be just like Denmark in 3 years.

And why are you acting like Dems need to win more Republican votes? Those who are NOT anti-Trump at this point cannot be won over. For everyone who claims to be anti-trump and yet strongly imply they won't vote for Bernie, I can only say they must be rather OK with Trump. Around here, (the phil forum) I have not heard any single Bernie supporter say they will not vote for Biden or Bloomberg (despite being seriously opposed to Bloomberg), but there seems to be some strong implication that the moderates will not vote for Bernie.

Experts estimate that Sanders' major proposals would cost a staggering $60 trillion and would double the size of the government (while his tax plans fall $27 trillion short of paying for it). There's a reason that, when pressed on the cost of his plans, Sanders simply refuses to answer, saying he actually has no idea and 'no one does.

And that's from a Democratic think tank! — Wayfarer

Surely it is clear by now that many "democrat think tanks" are more anti-Bernie than they are anti-Trump (economics is everything - and being american we all know which "economics" is right :roll:). But I still believe these numbers are somewhat accurate. But based on what I said above, you can probably tell that even if I think those numbers are 100% accurate, it doesn't change my vote. Estimates like that assume when people elect Bernie for President that they also elect two thirds of both houses of congress and EVERY state congress. And these people can't just be democrats, they would have to be full on Bernie style believers. Oh, and don't forget we need a few dead supreme court justices (although I suppose if democratic socialists control every congress in the country, then they can just raise the number of supreme court justices).

Bernie Sanders is openly calling for a political revolution. — Wayfarer

I guess so. A revolution unlike any in history. Where people just vote slightly different. If we look at European countries that Bernie would count as models, are they so different as to require a revolution to get there?

If Ralph Nader hadn't run against Gore, America wouldn't have had W. — Wayfarer

Huh? When Bernie loses the Dem nomination then runs as an independent, start that line of complaint. It has no business here as we decide which democrat candidate to run. Currently, I am far more concerned that the moderate dems are going to be the ones to hand the election to Trump.

I will vote for whoever is not Trump in the end. And if the American people, including some so-called moderate dems, would rather vote for Trump over Bernie, I guess America gets what it deserves.

But we simply can't keep pushing these corporate Dinos — Artemis

Perfect :up:

Suppose, for the sake of argument, Bernie is unelectable. — Relativist

Well everyone keeps supposing that...when is someone actually going to make the argument? Why is he unelectable?

Would you agree that would be a good reason to nominate someone who IS electable? — Relativist

What makes them (who?) more electable than Bernie?

My point is that you need to consider the consequences of your choice - and it's possible that your choice will result in 4 more years of Trump. — Relativist

I thought it was clear that if Dems show up in significant numbers and all vote for the same person, they will beat trump. So are you saying some of the Dems won't show up at the polls, or they will show but will vote trump, if Bernie is nominated? That would make them Super-hypocrites after all the crap they gave the Bernie bros last time.

Surely if Bernie is just dismissed again, that will hurt the Democrat vote as well?

You make me think it is a fool's game to compare that past with the present, but awareness of people being very concerned about morality is highly important to me. — Athena

While I certainly agree that concern for morality is important, life has beat me down when it comes to being optimistic about MOST people being INTERESTED enough to actually engage and analyze their morals (they would agree that morality is very important to them, but as soon as we begin to question and analyze, they want no part of it).

Unfortunately in trying to make my argument with you, I realize this is opening a huge can of worms! :grin: and I love it. — Athena

Dang, I like talking philosophy here much better than in real life! I can be very picky and annoying, and I could care less about my tone, so thank you for keeping things pleasant :smile:

This is why we come here, isn't it? To think about what we think. — Athena

:up: And occasionally to confirm that I am not the only human to think what I think :smile:

What we have forgotten today is the importance of submitting to power and how this goes with being responsible and self-government. — Athena

I am a little confused here, because your previous paragraph described a scenario where the power was illegitimate and tyrannical. So you agree with all those wives who just stuck with their horrifically abusive husbands until death? We don't think they should have left after day 1? I get the culture was different so that was not an option, but I don't see how that example leads to us learning the importance of submitting to power?

Do you understand family duty? Are you being a good child or a good man? — Athena

Surely we all have different opinions on "family duty" and "good"...?

I say too much but quickly I want to say, outside of the can of worms, we need to know of the Age of Reason to understand what morality has to do with our liberty and democracy. I really hope we can discuss this more. — Athena

I am happy to. Be warned that I don't accept any moral theory as "right" because it was popular in the past. Any people are "judged" within the time they lived, but any morals are analyzed as completely as possible (they can be "judged" from a modern perspective).

So in the places where lots of people live, their biggest economic factor is necessarily scarce, so people in those places more readily face the failures of our capitalist economic system and call for policies ameliorating them. — Pfhorrest

Interesting theory. And here I thought I was joking about Republicans bringing down property values...turns out it is low property values creating the conditions for more Republicans.

The more I think about it, the more reasonable it sounds. I can't think of any counter-examples...so it seems it must be somewhat accurate.(red portions of blue states - like CA - are typically wealthy enough that they are not worried about high housing costs {like orange county} / blue portions of red states - like Texas - are typically more popular places to live with higher property values {like Austin}). Interesting.

I'll be 30 this year. — BitconnectCarlos

Dang...I was way off. I guess I am almost 40, and things were closer to how you described when I was in school. I guess I am thinking of my teacher training classes, but those are much more recent.

I feel it's kind of like a pendulum sometimes; sometimes the attitude is super positive and other times it's pretty cynical/realistic. Maybe we'll see it swing back in the other direction more to the realistic side soon. — BitconnectCarlos

Sounds right. And the current over-swing of the pendulum still beats the situations you experienced, so I find it acceptable, if occasionally annoying.

I don't need you reminding me of my condition, nor do you score brownie points for coming up to me and expressing me how you're such a virtuous person who is good enough to feel pity. — BitconnectCarlos

Well no worries there. I would have to know someone very well before I say anything beyond small talk. If i eventually say something, it is out of interest, not pity (that does not make it any more appropriate). But there is no avoiding the fact that I feel pity. But pity does not mean I think they are in any way worse or less valuable...in fact, they are more admirable, because all of their accomplishments occurred in spite of their pitiable aspect (and I am not just talking about "disabilities").

The thing with pity is that men don't make friends with other men out of pity, nor do women fuck men out of pity either. — BitconnectCarlos

I have (and continue to) done worse in both of these areas than most. I am average looking, fairly athletic, and never struggled with academics. But I am very socially awkward, which leads to a tendency to be a dick. Am I aware of it? Sometimes (arguing with disabled people about disabilities seems somewhat dick-ish). But can I do anything about it? Surely not much, as that is who I am. If someone pitied me for this I would not think they think they are a better person than me, just that they are more socially gifted. But that is just ONE aspect of what makes us people. If I pity that you have to deal with a stutter, that just means I don't have to deal with that problem, you might be better than me at everything else??

but 94.3% of the population can not manage it. — Bitter Crank

Just making sure you were just having fun by making up a very specific number here? Or were you referencing a particular study or something? I agreed with most of what you said, but was shocked (and interested) to think scientists could say that specifically the percent of people who can manage open and settled relationships??

What influence does the political leaning of a state have on the cost of its housing? — Pfhorrest

They may have just been pointing out that a high number of republicans in the neighborhood keeps property values low :razz:

Sometime I'd be interested in doing a more serious, critical history of marketing, journalism, and so on (something which doesn't boil down to or degenerate into childish fandom of a specific "network" devoid of any further facts, or critical assements of the reality thereof to begin with, and what the primary and various marketing methods, axioms and target demographics are to begin with. — IvoryBlackBishop

Sounds great :smile: I would love to see the summary when competed. However, it sounds like a complicated and potentially tedious study to complete. So I am interested, but not enough to put in actual effort...but if I ever have a few spare million dollars lying around, I would be happy to fund such a study.

That is sweet but perhaps a little immature. — Athena

That's me :blush:

The past standard for an adult was a person who welcomed responsibility. — Athena

Ugh, yes it was, although they had (and continue to have) a very narrow definition of "responsibility". They also believe that the more hours I work the better person I must be :roll:

Responsibility means taking care of myself without causing undue burden on my fellow man. Multiple generations used to live under one roof. Why is it now irresponsible to live that way? I don't like the idea of living with my parents, but it is a happiness and lifestyle choice, not a responsibility issue. If we care about the environment, it is actually MORE responsible for multiple generations to live together.