Leaderboard

Makes perfect sense to me. Especially when you consider Muslim children will eventually become Muslims adults who'll violate our moral values and breed more NAP violators, to put it vaguely. I want to revise what I said about groups and collective blame somewhat because I do think groups ought to be held collectively responsible if everyone participated in the action, however I now think that members of a group who may not have actively participated in a crime also should suffer condemnation (and whatever punishment is appropriate) because they're at least enabling it with silence or worse still creating it through private actions. In the case of Muslims, I feel all right (again 'feel') saying "I want no Muslims nor people with an Islamic heritage" in my country or living space because even if there's a chance I "get lucky" with a fake Muslim, it is far more likely I'll either be neighbors with actual Muslims and those who'd foster it. Therefore, on the broader subject of collective judgements, while they not be philosophically 100% valid (they're about as valid as the percentage of danger presented by the group's dangerous members, so to figure) they are practically valid because exceptions do not make the rule, and if there is a group with a very high rate of criminality it's perfectly reasonable to want them gone and far away, even if there is a risk of abandoning the "good ones" because they are exceptions liable to create more of the rule themselves. Plus, it's just a lot safer and a lot more efficient to make decisions about collectives based on them collectively.

There is theory, and then there is practice. There are ideals, and then there are facts. I don't think it is reasonable to consider ALL muslims having violated the NAP, not even if MOST muslims have. There are muslims who are still children, muslims who could be killed for apostacy, muslims who just haven't been presented with reason and evidence yet. All that said, I do feel a deep hatred for everyone that calls themselves muslim, because I FEEL (emphasis here) like they have violated the NAP against me, giving me the right to retaliate. Making sense?

I have no experience with what you're talking about, I have very rarely seen real abuse in public. I would suggest curiosity instead of judgment. If your goal is to at the least, inform the child that there are people out there with empathy, and to also show them that their parents are exercising choices and have responsibility for their actions, then I would suggest maybe having detailed information about studies on spanking/abuse. Like that multi-generational study that was recently released showing the inefficacy of abuse and the damages of it on the children. Get the specific information on it, even print some business cards with the detailed info that can be Googled--like a bibliographical notation--and hand it to the parent and encourage them to look into the effects of spanking/abuse and to reconsider their choices. This would achieve both goals in my view. 1. The child has witnessed empathy and assistance from another. 2. The child has witnessed the presentation of facts and choices to the parent. It would be hard for the parent to say "We didn't know any better....We did our best....Our parents raised us like that and we turned out fine", etc. The kid, presumably grown at the time of a later discussion could answer "Well, I remember a time you were hurting me in Wal Mart and some people told you there was new information and even handed you a card to research it yourself, so how did you not know better, and how did you do your best?"

What do you call the fact that some 'deterministic' animals have a (implicit) knowledge of physical laws, without having the abstract knowledge of those laws?

- Ok, something we agree on. Quite frankly, I don't give two ships about the millions of sects within Islam. I think they all should leave their barbaric culture and join the west. - Right. Now tell me. Did ALL the muslims in Belgium aggress towards by brother by associating with the terrorists? And does he now have the right to nuke them? - I completely lost you on this point. So Stalin has associated himself with people who tried to conquer and enslave the entire western world by force, and you wouldn't even punch him? - I got the part that it is immoral. Do I get to do something about it, or do I tolerate it like you would tolerate Stalin? I would think that I have the moral obligation to put an end to everything immoral. I am profoundly enjoying this conversation, and I really appreciate your arguments. Please do not misunderstand my tone, be it a bit snarky.

Finally you agree that you are not providing an argument. Congratulations, the first step in solving the problem is acknowledging the problem. This is a philosophy forum. Provide arguments, logic, reason, and facts - not verbal abuse, meaningless statements like "get over yourself", or telling other people what to do. Your user name (_LiveFree_) is an oxymoron - it's a self-contradictory effect when you tell others how to live. Funny because it reminds me of a 90's movie called "I Come In Peace" where the villain would say "I come in peace" to make people drop their guard just before he proceeded to kill them. I guess peace for the villain meant death to others. What is "this" and how do we determine "doing...right"? You're building the case against you being capable of practising philosophy. Just because you say it is doesn't make it so. Again, where's your argument? You hijacked neeeel's thread when you started to complain about his short posts and that he was apparently wasting time. I'm here to show you, and others who will see this in the future, of your insulting behaviour towards others here including how you ignore evidence with even more insults! No. Calling people "retards" and ordering them what to do in a public arena only makes me wonder how you will behave with the doors closed. You want to hide the evidence and logic supporting your abusive and insulting behaviour. Let's be transparent to Neeeel and others by showing the world how _LiveFree_ reacts when an argument with empirical evidence is built against you. I've done some homework. You have a trend of being certain about how others ought to behave while failing to take your own advice. Here's what you said regarding newspeak on April 27, 2017 in this thread: Here's what you said about philosophy on May 8, 2017 in this thread: The following is your statement supporting your hypocrisy regarding the proper use of "not an argument": So you're telling me that when you call some one a "retard" and I point out that it's not an argument, you think you have the credibility to correct me that I'm doing it wrong. You have little to no integrity and are clearly hypocritical. I hope these posts help shine some light on who _LiveFree_ is, so that when some one like neeeel is sharing something personal and difficult, that they recognize having a discussion with some one like _LiveFree_ is not a safe person. I recommend seeking out a good professional therapist who is trained to provide safe interactions within a safe place.

My comment to you was about the way you were approaching Neeeel. You were concluding he wasn't putting in effort when he clearly is. You made a claim about him you couldn't support and I told you to not engage him if you didn't like the way he was responding. Ironic then that you put me on ignore when you don't like the way I'm responding.

From this link: This quotation is how I see choice operating from biological systems (suppression of alternates until 1 remains). The primary inhibitory neurotransmitter in the spinal cord is glycine. If you trigger a knee-jerk response the signal never makes it to the brain before you "decide" to straighten your leg. But the biomechanical representations of mind are not freewill. These are objects that our subject automatically expresses. Looking for proof of mind in objects cannot be satisfied. Our on-going subjective experience is not measureable to outsiders. No one can conclusively pass a Turing test. This is intractable. You can't know the internal experience of another without inhabiting another (for B, thus ending distinction of A=A, B=B, and not A=B). At the level of freewill, you can't know someone without being someone (A=A). Once that happens the evidence is ever-present. We have subjective experience. But as long as you don't "be someone" you can't measure their freewill. Mind and matter, subject and object, freewill and biomechanical expression of freewill, are all the same dichotomy. You will never be able to disassociate quantum probability and immaterial intentionality (mind/freewill) within biological choice systems (like brains). To the most precise empiric methodology, freewill will feature as a probability. That's the closest empircs get to subjects. This probability is interesting because a confidence interval is also the most accurate way to represent someone passing a Turing Test (or Solipsism being false). The stack of mental gymnastics to predict agency is just getting started with Poe's Law (inability to disambiguate satire from genuine). It's just another path along Solipsism's road. Ultimately we can't know others mind in direct observation, although with enough science we could know their brain state. Mind and brain are not the same thing. Externals cannot directly measure internals. That's a schematic feature of a reality where A=A. If there is any part of us that is non-physical in being (like freewill or subjective experience), science will be unable to document it. If there is no part of our being that is non-physical than freewill is not possible. All matter-originating causes are known by science. None of these causes is an exclusive or unique property of you and you only, insofar as legitimizing rewarding/punishing you for your behavior. Chaos works on all. If chaos is the totality of "freewill", then we share a universal and communal source of agency (and thus praise and culpability is mutual for all and every act--kind of how liberals see white guilt). Individual action and moral responsibility are impossible in this type of universe. If freewill is true, this worldview is necessarily false.

The universe is not deterministic in the literally meaning of the word. The idea that a clockwork started with the Big Bang and - literally - everything is determined til the end is definitely wrong. This conclusion can be drawn from quantum physics and chaos theory. If our minds are not materialistic, then nothing can be said about free will, because we don´t even know what to to talk about. Gosts? Gods? If our minds are materialistic, free will must be between chance and clockwork. Chance does not require energy consuming brains and minds, and evolution would never have favored them. A clockwork does not need a mind at all. Benjamin Libet made some experiments regarding free will. From this link: regards Andi

dear pathfinder, I sympathize with your situation as I myself was for a long time in a like state. Then I found something that shook me to the core and provided a major breakthrough. I read the book by Dr. James Hillman entitled 'The Soul's Code : In Search of Character and Calling' This changed my life. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of this work to one who is searching for a meaning and direction in their life.

Hi everyone, I'm Louise. I'm from Scotland and I'm looking forward to getting to know some people on here.

Short answer: be honest. You're not being honest with yourself about what you are experiencing. You're self-censoring. Stop. Longer answer: www.selfleadership.org YOU have to do the work. No one else. This is on you. If you don't care enough to do it, no will be able to help you. There are lots of resources on that website. Buy books, YouTube internal family systems therapy and watch videos. Print this thread out and take it to your therapist. Ask your therapist what emotions she/he sees you expressing. Maybe you're not aware of them. I see frustration from you. I feel frustration reading your responses. Frustration is the result of anger arising out of a denied desire. Stop being frustrated. Stop denying that you are worth the effort to fix this and cultivate a feeling of panic! This is your #1 job in your life right now, not some side interest you sometimes think about. Go buy Internal Family Systems Therapy by Richard Schwartz. Read it cover to cover in a couple of days to get familiar with it. Then go back through it again slowly. Go buy cheap notebooks and pens from Walmart. Write write write. PRACTICE writing how you feel. Get to know your parts. Be honest. Keep a daily journal. If you don't know what to write, then write, "I don't know what to write." Then write how you feel about not knowing what to write. You have a muscle called self-expression that has atrophied because it has been tied up unable to move your whole life. You must go through the agony of rebuilding it BY USING IT. There is no HOW for you anymore. Only choice of whether you will or will not. Posting on a message board won't do it. Listening to podcasts won't do it. Simply thinking about it won't do it. And complaining to others won't do it. Questions?

It is good to speak up in the presence of wrongdoing. Don't be a pussy.