PatrickC

There was me thinking they'd gotten it muddled up with V day.. As in V-jayjay day..

The next London meet up planned this Sunday 15th March at 12pm outside the Tate Britain. Near Pimilico Tube Facebook event here: https://www.facebook.com/events/852103074849387/

Welcome from London The weekly Saturday evening Europe Call (8pm CET) is still under Skype name - Philosophy Europe Call

I believe the Bill Cosby show 'Different Strokes' was one of them and there were others that don't spring to mind right now. But generally most contemporary portrayals are as you're suggesting, anything but.

Yes I'm prone to think this as the best description. As is an often made response to that feeling regarding injustice, is referred to as a travesty of justice.

Well this is the usual BS spouted by those that will never be expected to take up arms. I'm assuming that this teacher is in later middle age and most unlikely to ever be called up to fight in any war. So it's just a case of him offsetting the costs of war onto the young. Something you can easily do when you're not actually paying the cost.

Yes, I'm aware of that thread and have deliberately avoided commenting on it, because people's minds it seems are made up. But since you bring it to this thread I'll give you my own thoughts on it. Firstly I think it's completely understandable that some people in this community were going to react negatively towards this call. I think if I had listened to this call more than 2/3 years ago I might have been joining them myself. I can't speak for you or anyone else's history with religion, but I know my own. Having been brought up with religion, it certainly hampered my own search for truth in adulthood, which swept me down a path to nihilism, causing me no end of problems in finding true happiness in my life. I have certainly cursed religion for that. But in reality much of my reaction towards religion was more a projection of how my parents had lied and treated me. Religion had been a soft target for my annoyance with them. In more recent years I've gotten to know some Christians through work and realised that I share many values with them. Values that are almost never shared in any other community I interact with day to day. It was a startling revelation to me at first and one that I felt decidedly uncomfortable with at first. But they have been surprisingly warm towards my ideas on ethics and child raising and just about the only people I've ever been able to discuss philosophy with in a civil and productive manner outside of this community. This simply isn't true. The question was, with whom would you prefer to leave your children too, if the only choices were the state or the church? With all the caveats that it was a church community that didn't indulge in subjugation and exploitation. However, I do agree that it's a pragmatic stance. Stefan was very clear to say that it wasn't an argument. If we take philosophy seriously it's an extremely hard discipline to follow in our current culture. Something that makes it that much harder is by expecting to be surrounded by people in our lives that share absolutely every value we have. Some of us simply aren't going to be living around likeminds and it may not be practical for us to leave and be amongst them. So finding people that don't initiate force against us in our personal lives and still manage to share some of our values can be potentially great allies for us and allow us to move out into the wider world we're surrounded by. I for one do not want to be living in isolation in my own impenetrable philosophical ivory tower. That said, I do understand how challenging it can seem at first, particularly if you've never considered it before. I think it's a personal process we all have to go through as individuals dependent on our own circumstances. I'd still be open to your arguments against it of course. I'm not saying my position or Stefan's is ironclad. There may well be issues that we haven't considered that need correction. Excuse me for being long winded perhaps, but I hope it makes sense.

Wow this was such an interesting call in, thanks James (needed a few tissues for this one ). Recently I'd been thinking that whilst I've always tended to feel that I would have prefered my family to have left the church whilst I was growing up. There was a great deal of kind and benevolent people that I met in that community for whom I wouldn't have benefited from if my family hadn't been connected to them. Having spent some time with people in this (FDR) community, I realise that my ACE score of 3 is quite low by comparison to many. That my parents in particular my father's faith probably tempered his propensity for sadism. That without his faith things could have been a whole lot worse for me. I feel I've reached a cornerstone which has finally brought me some peace regarding my history with christianity. I hope Scott can find that peace also. Great call.

The twisted irony is that the second video (below) shows a bunch of famous women all claiming how wonderfully supportive their own fathers were. The implication being that these fathers magically stepped out of the norm. That as 'regular joes' (men) we have a lot to learn from them, because, 'look, see how successful their daughters became!' Aiming this at the NBA is such a deliberate act of shaming men. In particular the men that already support the females in their kin. Latching onto a mans natural protector instinct like a parasite demanding, 'more I say!'

Refer to the 'coma test' for your exceptions. I hope this thread encourages people to actually read and understand UPB, rather than just react to comments like someone laid down the law. meh!

Is this how you approach someone that has taken the time to think philosophicaly in a logical and consistent manner for several years on the topic. Who has given us a book to read on the topic of ethics. A book it seems that you haven't read or don't understand. The trouble with your argument, is that philosophicaly it allows just about any tinpot dictator to arbitralily decide what is good and bad for everyone. You're so caught up in your desire that your preferences be found morally true, that you've lost sight of the broader picture. Rather than making baseless assertions about UPB, Stefan or his audience (for which one of them is you btw). Provide us a philosophical argument without syllogisms. Just saying it is so, does not and WILL NOT make it so. Yes it does need rational actors, which animals don't fall under (in UPB terms). APA would be the approach I would take towards ethical preferences. Albeit different preferences may have different consequences of course. It's probably the more useful part to understand in the book in this regard, if UPB isn't your main sticking point.

I don't think either of you have read or understood UBP. Which is quite frustrating when trying to approach this topic philosophically. It's literally like asking a blind man to see. Regarding the issue of cognitive awareness which keeps cropping up on this thread, you should check out the section on the 'coma test'.

The major issue here is between our preferences and philosophical universality. I've had to let some of my own ethical preferences stand distinct from UPB. However, this doesn't mean that I don't consider some non UPB violations as ethically wrong. Some of my own ethical preferences would be: 1 - I consider a drunk driver responsible for whom they kill or injure whilst driving inebriated. 2 - I consider a 30+ year old man or woman responsible for the developmental future of a teenager they had sex with. This even when consent was given by both parties. 3 - I consider a perrson responsible for passing by a serious motor accident which they weren't responsible for and did nothing to help. In all cases I cannot say these people violated UPB. Some of the actions above may already be considered by the majority as wrong, others less so. I can try and convince people that my opinion is right, by making arguments for why I consider these actions as wrong. I can use a wide variety of tools to do this from statistics, science to argument, but I cannot universalise them in UPB terms. ______________________________________________________________________________________________ That said, perhaps one day we can universalise some of our ethical preferences that don't fall under the auspices of UPB. In which case we may need to throw out UPB altogether (or update it), in favour of a different formula that can test a wider range of moral theories better. However, any future formula would need to be as philosophically rigourous and consistent (if not more so) as UPB. For now at least UPB remains the most rigouous philosophical test for universal morality we have to date. Stefan discusses some of this (re animal welfare and UPB/NAP) in a recent call in show. It's the first caller. FDR 2918 - If Slaughterhouses Had Glass Walls

How did this thread become mine? What happened to the chap that initiated the thread? As for women not doing it. Well, I don't see much difference. If women want equality, then grab that gun sister. I'll be the last one white knighting them on this issue, in deference to men. They're fair game as the rest of us. Personally I would emigrate. If you're Lithuanian, then move to Britain. Might as well take advantage of the EU polit bureau. 5 years will drift by pretty quick. Russia is like our ISIS for Lithuania. Just another way to scare the slaves into contrition.

Yes the Greens (at least the ones in the UK) are heavily dependent on the current banking system. Of course the bitter pill they would need to swallow would be austerity the likes of which they've never known and would mean that none of the handouts they plan to give the poor would ever be possible.

Hi Nixy. Hope you had a safe journey home on Saturday. I would personally recomend his book On Truth: The Tyranny of Illusion. It's the third one down in this link. https://freedomainradio.com/free/ Or you could try 'Everyday Anarchy' perhaps for specific problems govt causes.

Bumping the Afterthoughts show (above).. If you enjoy the show you can join our Facebook group below: https://www.facebook.com/groups/philosophyfilmclub/

Well, it's the fact we have a guy that wants to concentrate on the limited amount of exposure to prison life that women have and sees a womens comfort as more important than men by virtue of not mentioning the male experience. Men I might add that outnumber women in prison by a huge amount and more often than not have to experience rape at unprecidented levels. Where is the love, which I say figuratively. Women already experience prison life a whole lot better than men do. White knights and their ilk make sure they do.

Hey thanks for updating me, I hadn't realised that. Best of luck with your project, personal time permitting of course.

If only us 80's kids had taken the advice of an 'in the closet' (at the time) gay guy..

That was a Bonnie Tyler song right? Thanks ETU for the antidote.

If you donate up to Gold level you'll get a free audio version of Stefan's book, 'The God of Athiests'.. A perfect example of philosophy in fiction.

Afterthoughts show starts in under an hour.

Yes I spoke flippantly in my earlier post. This is an 'effing' nightmare for young Lithuanian men. I hope you can find a way to avoid this as best you can.