PatrickC

Just letting people know that I am hoping to make this a private Google Hangout 'AIR' live stream. In which case I will only be posting a link for (unlimited) listeners to join automatically here in this thread and on my blog. The link to join automatically as a caller (10 max) will only be available to you after you join the Google+ community that I discussed in my second post. I will have to add you to that group before you have access, so you might want to do this ahead of the scheduled call, as I will no doubt be otherwise preoccupied by then. The callers will come on a first come first served basis for now. Unless otherwise prearranged that certain callers had something they particularly wanted to bring to the call. Private message me if that is the case.

Rather than talk in abstractions. Why not point out some of the 'actual' successes. Like the violin playing and some of the events that put context to those abstractions Tom. I'm not criticising what you are saying, just that you could add more context to it, by explaining the net positives you have gained from all this learning. Hope that makes sense.

Yes, Jordan was frankly a star in this discussion. As for the rest, well.. they probably need to get out from under their mothers apron strings.

I am curious, would it make any difference if the trolley belonged to Walmart or Tesco? (rhetorical)

Yes, I'm not convinced this is going in the right direction. More like one step forward and two back.

This is the Google+ event link that I created for the 18 Oct 2014 https://plus.google.com/u/0/events/cijih8ejedrn99mnp96gins7fs0?authkey=CPnB8tfE54WFAw However, I strongly suggest you join the Google+ group in my previous post, so as to be sure to be added to the call. The interest so far (from various sources) has been surprisingly good. So I look forward to an enthusiastic show.

Hi Boohickey, thanks for your interest. I prefer to use Google Hangout these days, as it's more reliable. But if the call gets heavily subscribed (10+), then we may have to use Skype. You will need a gmail account, after which you can setup your Google+ account which will give you access to the Hangout app. I can then add you to the Philosophy Film Club Google+ group circles, after which you'll be able to reach the call. Here is the blogspot page that I will be publishing the podcasts and reviews on. You can also add your Google+ details to this blog for email reminders and a way for me to see newcomers that I can invite to future calls. http://philosophyfilmclub.blogspot.co.uk/ I have amended the start time, because some of my european friends found it a little late. So instead of starting at 23:00 we shall be commencing at 21:00 (GMT). Here is the Google+ group page and Ady I've already sent you an invite. (check Google) https://plus.google.com/communities/113113551544686168396

I have been considering a film club within the FDR community for some time now, but haven't quite managed to get the ball rolling. However, I have decided to set a date and time for this call in which we can discuss the philosophical aspects of movies and TV shows. I will be doing this on a monthly basis and look forward to those joining me on Google Hangout. Just so you know I also plan to record these conversations too for publication. That said, no private information will be disclosed of course. So my plan is to have a call at 21:00 (GMT) on Saturday 18 Oct. This is UK time for me. I look forward to discussing the movie Dead Poets Society. Please PM me for contact details if you are at all interested and all the best.

Hi Stiofan, Welcome to the boards and a sounds like you have been making some brave new inroads with your life. If you're interested I co host a meet up group in London that has recently started again within the last 6 months. We have varying numbers between 12 - 30 people. You are certain to meet some likeminds amongst them. Our next meet up is on the 11 Oct at Kew Gardens near Richmond (West London). We have a meet up page if you are on Facebook. Otherwise you can go to the meet up everywhere website to sign up for email reminders. https://www.facebook.com/groups/1438425056435291/ http://www.meetup.com/Freedomain-Radio/London-GB/1211802/

I don't think Shane or corbyco really seem to understand UPB. UPB is merely a way to test moral claims. It's not in itself a moral claim. It's a formula by which we can evaluate whether moral claims are consistent and universal or not. You're both attempting to squeeze UPB into your own personal environments, whether your conscious of it or not. That's fine of course, but please don't do philosophy the disservice of claiming truth.

Yes, I've listened to many Christians that claimed a similar experience. Not least my own parents that brought me up around such folk. All of it's anecdotal though you realise and impossible to prove. Therefore has no relationship with philosophy, so I'm not sure what you are trying to inform here. That faith trumps reason perhaps? Yes, the lasting impression I had of Christians, is that they are often very kind people and very willing to give of their time. That said I have seen that amongst people that weren't religious more recently, but I grant you it tends to be fairly consistent within Christian circles.

You see, this is where you differ from myself and dsayers. You see forgiveness as an act by the offended (or victim) that they bestow on the perpetrator, as a means to 'moving on' from the situation. We see it as an involuntary act that is wholly dependent on the future actions of that perpetrator. We'll just go round in circles if you don't acknowledge the differences in our definitions.

You are misunderstanding forgiveness, at least in the way philosophy sees it. I've often heard forgiveness conflated to be something the victim needs to exhibit in order to overcome supposed bitterness and hatred. Why do you propose a victim would feel bitterness and hatred for the perpetrator and if so why would that be even wrong. For instance I have had several people that have stolen from me and assaulted me in the past. I was never even adequately compensated by them, let alone saw any remorse or conscious desire to change or modify (improve) their behaviour. No amount of willingness on my part brings me to forgive them, but since they are not a part of my life, my thoughts are no longer consumed by them and I have no desire for revenge. Anger would be a healthy reaction to someone wronging you. Forgiveness on the other hand would be an involuntary response to the perpetrators active (and seen) modification of his/her life and their enhancement of my own. Having empathy and understanding as to why a person acts out badly in the way they do, doesn't automatically hand them a 'get out of jail free card'. True forgiveness is earned and the only person capable of inspiring it, is the perpetrator. In this way the true virtue comes from the perpetrators successful attempts to atone for their previous actions and the forgiveness comes as a natural outcome of that and the relationship they are probably developing together. As in your husband and wife scenario.

Here's a video that rebuts quite well Emma's position, with a rather surprising but interesting conclusion that I think many here will quite like. It could do with some up voting as it's been festooned by progressive concern trolls. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbraAnXS1Fc

No one is asking you or anyone to change their minds, but it does appear the OP wanted to make some shaming commentary about this community regarding atheism. Calling a spade a spade, seems reasonable in this regard.

Sometimes, (actually most times). I have to wonder what you are actually talking about skirtilator. It rarely ever seems to be about the topic in hand.

The most memorable moment I had was whilst listening to one of Stef's podcast. I cannot recall which one it was, as it was back in 2008 sometime. But I do remember the general gist of it. He was discussing the idea that the govt is fictitious and only gleams it's power from the subservience of the citizens that grants special privileges to certain individuals, such as the police. As I was listening to this, I was on a bus on my way home, when two ladies jumped onto the back of the bus as the doors were closing. One of them got her bag caught in the sliding doors and was trying to yank it free, whilst the other one raced up to the driver. It was at that point that I pulled my earphones out, as they were both screaming at the driver to stop the bus. It was only once they started screaming POLICE, POLICE! that it dawned on me that they were undercover cops. Anyway these idiot cops decided to get the driver out of his cab and proceeded to reprimand him for not listening to him and started threatening him with arrest. It was only once their colleagues arrived in some undercover BMW that they just jumped into the back of it as the driver raced off. Needless to say the driver was a little shook up and kept saying, 'I had no idea they were the police'. I was like, 'wow', did I just see something that exemplified what Stefan was saying in that podcast, right before my bleedin eyes.

Yes, me and Ryan were discussing this last night and he thought the whole thing had been scripted by someone else, which in hindsight seems pretty obvious now. I read another article that criticised the speech, but only on the last five words of it... "At last! How long have I waited for this? Finally we see a body like the United Nations issue a clarion to the world, to stand as one against all forms of violence and discrimination…" “…faced by women and girls.” http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2014/09/23/the-five-little-words-that-betrayed-emma-watson/ That said, I still prefer Ryan and Kevin's interpretations above.

Oh corbyco, you didn't come here not knowing what this forum was about surely?.. That said, if you really have an issue, take it up with one of Stef's calls. I think it will be more useful than with walls of counter arguments in text.

I think she meant well.. But still, a massive gender 'empathy' gap on her part (despite her thoughts on her father). That's me being reasonable on the lass too. The insinuation that we (men) are 'broken women' as Ryan pointed out earlier. Well, that's more than annoying. EDIT - The hyperbole definitely lies within the feminist territory for now.

Clever speech. She had me going for a moment. Until, I realised that it is men that are expected to help women. It's the same old silliness, including the pay gap. Oh my, where do you start?

Yes, I much prefer the condensed version Tom. I wondered though, you could split the longer parts from the previous statement into separate mission 'goals' perhaps. Whereby the more curious minded can understand the larger picture of the websites intent. This could be done with condensed sentences which can then lead to a more detailed explanation at the users discretion (with a click). Does that make sense?

Difficult to really understand what either of them are attempting to discuss, as they talk in abstractions, based on anecdotes she barely describes. I'd say Magnus comes close to it, at least with Thom's position, in that the narrative hints directly with patriarchy and male abuse. Topics that are meant ridicule an opposing demographic, in this case the Christian Right.

I'm quite sure there is personal stuff for Yeravos to process here about this interaction. But the manner in which you attempt to highlight it, is far from helpful and almost verges on verbal abuse. I suggest you re-evaluate your own behaviour in this thread. If this community is unable to share abusive interactions they may have like this with individuals they meet from this community. Then they will just carry on their vitriol with others in the community. Watching each others backs is an important part of what goes on here. Let's say it only took me 20 minutes to reach Yeravos conclusions about this chap. It would still have been a waste of my time, when I could have been having a better interaction with someone else. Now people know who this person is and what they are capable of, we are all freed from that unpleasant possibility.

I'll have to watch this movie in full before I can make any real assessment RJ (which I will). But I must admit (at least from the trailer) I'm veering towards MMX's thoughts. It feels like the ultimate contemporary fantasy 'chick flick', whereby the PUA male that they've fallen for, for like 10 times or more before finally gets his comeuppance. I'm curious to know how the lady he seemingly falls for, doesn't attempt to use the same tricks he uses.. All said, I clearly need to watch it before I can pass any real judgement. Of course you are right, that he seemingly does get what he asked for, in his lack of virtue.