shirgall

"cultural" is a concept, "visual" is a concept, and "association" is a concept. Taken together "cultural visual association" is also a concept. A related collection of trees (of sufficient number) might be physical, but their grouping is a concept, whatever source is used to define that grouping. The fact that you illustrate that "forest" has different meanings to different people underscores it as a concept. You don't have to hold a perfect platonic form to have a concept. I made a point about translation of concepts to reality early in this thread, but I don't think it was taken to heart. I will reiterate: Every useful concept relates back to the world, but like analogies, you have to be careful not to make an error in the translation or you spend all of your useful time talking about the errors and edge cases.

Indeed, both of my restatements of the premise also had universals, for ironic effect.

I doubt this was a serious question, but while it is possible to lose face if he debated poorly, do we really expect a self-identified socialist to win on imagined record of socialist successes? Even before Venezuela went kaboom we had a lot of evidence it does not deliver on the promises made to garner support. Socialism needs to be fearlessly, repeatedly, and publicly debunked with reason and evidence.

Bottom line: Contempt is insurmountable. Banter is fun. As a couple you will have to sympathetically determine which is operating. If it's contempt the relationship is over. If it's banter, it's not hard to set boundaries.

I haven't heard anything. I do have "Fantasy Grounds" for making online stuff easier, but I have not had a heck of a lot of time to do gaming.

The police uniform is intended to portray the police as "above the fray"... not taking sides in it.

Besides the answer to the third caller of show 1452 you mean? It is interesting to not see more than that in a cursory search, but "peaceful" returns a ton of results.

The point of racism audits is to put the local police departments under the direction of the DOJ via consent decree. There have been threads on this subject before. Here's a small taste: https://www.justice.gov/crt/consent-decree-monitor-reports

Correct, although the NAMBLA people made gave the slope argument credence for decades... they are the equivalent of open carry advocates with poor safety discipline showing up to gun rights rallies.

As a counterppoint a famous guy once said in 1986 ( https://w2.eff.org/Misc/EFF/quotes.eff.txt): "As a free society matures it becomes more permissive, because the converse is too horrible to contemplate."

Is it "all philosophers should not use universals" or "some philosophers should never use universals"?

I think it is a disconnect between a stock photo used to advertise the video and the actual content.

Having once worked for a university, I was told by the staff that would know that women are just as disgusting as men.

I catch myself yelling, if not exploding, because that was the only way to overcome bullies in my history. It doesn't make it right, and I know it's wrong, but I still catch myself doing it. In fact, I overdo it to the point that makes me appear passive or timid in situations where I should be more assertive. Not my favorite thing about me, to be sure.

You cannot delegate force that you cannot justifiably enact. A security firm defends your property or your life with the same force you use to defend it. You cannot delegate to a security firm the initiation of force because you cannot justify your own initiation of force. When someone steals a bike from you and you go take it back, that's not initiation, but you also cannot kidnap or kill them over something like that. The state kidnaps and kills people over minor infractions in comparison.

Private property owners can decide for themselves, and customers can decide for themselves whether they care. Private property owners whose profits depends on customers will listen to their customers.

Every useful concept relates back to the world, but like analogies, you have to be careful not to make an error in the translation or you spend all of your useful time talking about the errors and edge cases.

When someone else knows why you asked a question, and you asked a question knowing what someone else would think about it.

This is a non sequitor. To test the items with UPB you have to construct the test case like this: Murder is the unjustified killing of another person. If murder was universally-preferable behavior everyone should kill another person and should want to be killed. If everyone should kill another and want to be killed the killing would not be unjustified. Because there is no murder when it is universally-preferable to murder, it must not be universally-preferable to murder. What individual action are you testing with UPB in your two examples. Universal healthcare and welfare involve a group of people taking valuable resources from individuals to fund some charitable initiative. It is theft. Theft was already shown not be UPB in the the book. Voting to fund healthcare and welfare less is an attempt to modify the power of the state to steal less. It is not a UPB problem to attempt such a modification. Unfettered immigration puts more of a burden on the state to fund healthcare and welfare than restricted immigration. It is not a UPB problem to attempt such a modification. Restricted immigration prevents people from coming into a place from another place. Restricting people from entering places they do not own is not a UPB problem either. The sticky problem comes from state-owned property. The group of people that are the state are stealing from some people to claim, hold, and develop "public spaces", which they claim are "open to all" but they really aren't. Once these spaces are established, it is no longer a matter of liberty to enter or modify those spaces. It is a matter of quelling a bully. Immigration as a liberty concept refers to people migrating to unowned, undeveloped land which they turn into property. There is very little such unclaimed land to be had on the planet. Those that say that public spaces should be open to all are attempting to quell the bully that is the group of people that are the state. Whatever argument works is what's right to those people, not philosophical arguments.

I think we should be willing to do exploration and self-knowledge. If it's boring, why bother to comment? I was more curious about the intent.

The principle of WAITING YOUR TURN. When two people are at a doorway, the person going "in" waits for the person going "out" to leave before moving through. If "in" and "out" cannot be determined, the person on the side where the door swings open is considered "in". I'm really not sure what the point of this thread is, but in practice none of the principles listed, including the one I just wrote, are obvious to all.

There is another category: minimal rulers. It is not enough to limit the power of the state, it is necessary to limit the power any person or group has over you. I can chose to give Amazon some of my privacy, for example, but I don't want them to share it with others. I can give my landlord access to my credit history and my obligation to pay rent, but I don't want them limiting my speech, where I work, or who I associate with. It's not enough to have only chosen positive and negative obligations on my action, I also have to make sure not too many of those obligations end up in the hands of one entity.

I think casual evil ("I'll be bad this one time and no one will notice") is more common and when it gets habitual more pernicious. I think it leads to the "rules for thee and not for me" attitude that leads to abdication of personal responsibility in favor of the state.

The "out of your league" factor is important. If you approach a woman that's out of your league, you will encounter hostility from her and her thralls because your approach lowers her value because you thought you were good enough, and she was low enough, that there was a chance. Repeated doses of "hot" hostility is enough to stop people from going outside their pigeonhole.

You may want to be specific if you want a response. He already explained that unfettered immigration increases state power more than controlled, for example.