Donnadogsoth

"Doofus man voice"--when she says something facetious in a low, mock-authoritative voice spun to make it seem like such men are absurd.

If we are commanded to hate the sinner why did Christ save the adulterous woman from being stoned?

Good catch, rosencrantz. As I see it, it comes down to whether God loves America. God guided the sling of David. Trump's metaphorical sling is his words. Can he sell America back to the people, or are they too far gone to care?

What entries on the list given would you say are verifiable?

The "triggering" phenomenon brings to mind this excerpt from Games People Play by Eric Berne, MD.

The tape featuring Donald Trump talking lewdly about women has existed for 11 years, yet it was only "leaked" to the mainstream newsmedia now, a month before election day. This smells like they had this tape since before the Republican National Convention, and waited to use it as a "trump card" against Trump, because they saw him knocking out his opponents, and knew if they destroyed him prematurely Hillary would have to face a more conventional opponent. So, they let Trump win the Republican nomination, knowing they had the tape which they could spring on him as an "October surprise".

I see no reason to believe the elements that comprise ISIS, the Ba'athist and Al-Qaeda elements, are, in quality or quantity, unique to the Iraq-Syria region. The Moslem world is large and there are many indoctrinated people in it, many angry, envious, or outright wicked people who are eyeing the fall of the West with salivation. So, given ISIS comprises "one unit," worth of Islamic threat to the West, how many other "units" of ISIS are there in the world? In other words, how many ISIS-sized units of Islamic militants are there in the world, lying in wait for the right chaotic conditions in which to arise?

Oh, not flippant, but bordering on snark. But that's fine. I'm happy you see what I's getting at, and thank you for consciousness-raising the thread with your latest post.

Are you arguing that memory is essential for meaning?--that no thing--no content--we can experience means anything (and thus is epistemologically irrelevant) without a remembered context to refer it to? If we eat, for example, we remember our hunger and our desire for good food and to some extent the associations, good and bad memories we have with those desires and urges. If we had no memory, we would eat machinelike, satisfying a basic but unconscious urge. Ergo memory=meaning. If this is the case, and if we take your statement about “I exist” being a reality strategy, then we could invert the list I gave and place “God exists” at the top, for the reason that if meaning is a reality strategy and we seek maximum meaning, we have to believe in the existence of a God. The existence of self would become the least important thing in one's reality strategy, the least meaningful, in other words.

Neeeel, the scenario is like all morality scenarios: it's designed to apply pressure to one's morality to see if it breaks. The trolley scenario, the transplant surgeon scenario, the lifeboat scenario, etc., are all trying to break morality. The point of such scenarios is to strengthen our own morality by exposing what principles we obey to show us better how to obey them. The answer that Drew Davis gave, that the key thing to understand here is that the child is trespassing and thus subject to appropriate force needed to end the trespass, is what I was looking for. Thanks for all your input.

Or 3) you think you're doing everything right as a parent and may not be, and so may be blindsided by your child's behaviour. Your points are good otherwise, but missing the point of the scenario. You're trying to jerry-rig the scenario and that's missing the point. Do you jerry-rig other moral dilemmas too? The point is no matter how good a parent you are, children can be unpredictable and can spoil your plans for them, including the plan of leaving company when it is polite.

Shouldn't that last sentence apply in significant measure to adults, too? Very few adults are "stone cold" in their immorality.

I see, trespassing as initiation of force, followed by forceful response (if no other choice). But, as was mentioned, a child lacks moral responsibility so the parents are the ones responsible for the trespassing. Not that the OP question was about "who's responsible" but there you have it.

Your child refuses to tell you why he/she doesn't want to go. What do you do? There are no couches in the room suitable for paediatric psychoanalysis.

No, you're trying to get out of the lifeboat dilemma by inventing convenient solutions. That's not what I'm asking. Please answer what I'm asking: if the parents have decided it's time to go, and their child doesn't want to go, and there's no lodging him/her at the home of the family being visited, and there's no persuading the child, what do you do?

Do you like being surprised by impossible situations? What was that I heard about "being prepared"? Nothing like figuring out in advance what to do should a situation like this arise. Never mind "a good parent would prevent this from happening," any parent, no matter how perfect, could find him or herself in such a bind.

What if it's just time to go? Time for bed, school the next day, whatever. (To make it easier, suppose the people you're visiting don't want to have your child come live with them.)

Wondering about how force is defined by the Peaceful Parent community. Suppose you visit neighbours and when you get up to leave, you tell your child it is time to go, and he or she refuses. No amount of persuasion will work. At some point you must either leave the child there or physically force--what other word is there?--him or her to come with you. Legit or illegit?

Below: a list of items in ascending order of magnitude of faith needed to believe. Comments or clarifications are welcome. I exist The World exists 1+1=2 Theory of Mind Night follows Day Boiling points lower with altitude Dinosaurs existed and left fossil evidence behind Politicians are usually bought Jesus Christ existed The Mainstream Media is controlled The New Dark Age conspiracy exists God exists

If you can keep your head when all about you Are losing theirs and blaming it on you, If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, But make allowance for their doubting too; If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies, Or being hated, don’t give way to hating, And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise: If you can dream—and not make dreams your master; If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim; If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster And treat those two impostors just the same; If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools, Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken, And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools: If you can make one heap of all your winnings And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss, And lose, and start again at your beginnings And never breathe a word about your loss; If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew To serve your turn long after they are gone, And so hold on when there is nothing in you Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’ If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch, If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you, If all men count with you, but none too much; If you can fill the unforgiving minute With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run, Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it, And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son! --"If," by Rudyard Kipling

I already referred to the false principle (self ownership), and do not recommend sacrificing the country for the sake of false principles.

Pro-vo here, I already addressed it; you ignored me. "Had to," like all statements of morality, is IF/THEN. IF Trump wants to see the country saved, THEN he should run for President. IF you want to see Hillary "own you" THEN you should stay home on your self-satisfied anarchist butt on November 8th.

Why is Trump focussing on sex tapes and affairs and all this ridiculous rubbish that no one cares about except the National Enquirer readership? Anyone for whom this would matter is already voting for him, so who is he appealing to? At this stage in the Sexual Revolution--post Gay, post Trans, post Poly, post Marriage--do younger voters really give a damn about Bill Clinton's libido? Why isn't Trump focussing on the economics and on Hillary's enmeshment in the Establishment status quo that has wrought the economic havoc over the past forty years? $25 million dollar Saudi donations, voting for TPP, supporting NAFTA, against reinstating Glass-Steagal (that Bill Clinton repealed), etc., etc.. Take the above two items, and consider them in light of pressure on Trump to reveal his plan to fight ISIS: he said he's keeping it a surprise. He's a smart guy, in his realm, he knows how to feint. Is this focus on the sexual peccadillos of his foes and their allies just a feint, getting the media and populace's guard down for when he ignores the sex stuff entirely in the second debate and hammers an ill-prepared Hillary with economic "sex tapes"?

If you're talking about discoveries of principle, then yes, a principle is a principle, and if we've discovered that that's great, but no finite set of principles perfectly describes the Universe, and so there will always be a need for inquisition, and there's no telling where inspiration will come from. I gave you the simplest mathematical principle I know of, if you can find me any non-human capable of grasping it I will declare them human. Humans are not beasts simply by virtue of their potential. That toddlers haven't unfolded their potential yet doesn't mean it isn't there, or they are somehow not human. That beasts will never grasp the doubling of the square no matter how much they are trained defines their inferior potential. Yes. A human working at the maximum mental capacity is capable of discovering any principle of Nature. As I've explained elsewhere, we are made in the image of the Totality of Truth. Such an image is conscious, we are conscious, ergo that which has It's image stamped on us is must be conscious too, in a way. And that makes it a God. The conventional Atheist anti-religious narrative is weak tea. Should animals be tried for crimes? They have free will according to you so they should be culpable for their crimes. All cultures are equal in promoting the development of the higher mental faculties? Which memes told the original Christians to die for something they knew was a lie?

Yes, pretzel, everything is hopeless, thanks for reminding us of that.