Koroviev

Sure, if you ignore their most holy prophet....

great suggestions! I'm also thinking along the lines of: "As a white man I am constantly reminded how bad it is to be a misogynist, a racist, and/or a rapist. Don't the teachings of islam espouse and encourage all of these things?"

Looking for question suggestions as well as things I should look into to prepare. I just found out I there is a talk on Islam 101 this Thursday which I'm planning on attending. Here's the description: ISLAM 101: PERCEPTIONS, MISCONCEPTIONS, AND CONTEXT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY Speaker: David Fenner What does it mean to be Muslim in a modern world? What if much of what we believe about Islam is incomplete or simply wrong? For more than 1.3 billion people across the world and many people in Washington state, Islam is not only their religion but also a way of life. Led by scholar David Fenner, this presentation focuses on Islam and the many aspects that form the substance of a rich culture, traditions, and a way of life. Fenner provides an accurate view of Islam, and creates an open atmosphere and encourages free dialogue to promote greater understanding of Islam, its history and its place in the modern world. The discussion is open and inclusive, and will address topics like, who was Mohammed, and what is the Qur’an, and even delves into the use and history of head scarves. Bring your curiosity; any relevant topic is up for discussion. http://www.humanities.org/programs/speakers/2015-16-speakers/david-fenner I think it may be enlightening and something that I shouldn't miss out on Thanks in advance!

Yes! Please do more Aristotle!

If what you are saying is correct then murder would fail universality as well. The question is not if something is universally preferred it is if it is possible for said action to be universally preferred. See above. If a moral changed based on a culture then it would be subjective.

I agree with Mike that you calling in would be the best course of action and I always find those calls extremely enlightening, but here's my 2 cents worth. If I recall correctly Stef actually mentions in a recent call-in show (I don't remember which at the moment) that part of the point of UPB was to show that you can indeed derive an is from an ought and that the argument you cannot get an is from an ought may not hold entirely true (If I'm misquoting I apologize it's not intended). Not sure if this is meant to be an argument but, just in case, it's not. This is a misrepresentation, and I think a common misunderstanding, of the argument. By it's very definition a moral must be universalizable. It is not that it is moral because it is universal. If you want to say that something is immoral it must be able to be immoral for everyone otherwise you are saying that some people should not do x which would make that a preference. Therefor if it cannot be universalizable it cannot be a moral. I'm not entirely sure I understand what you are saying here, but I think it may be another misunderstanding of the argument. It is not whether or not cultures choose to enforce something that makes it fall under the category of enforceable, but whether or not it is possible to enforce the moral commandment. For instance to say that it is immoral to think about purple rabbits would be invalid according to the UPB framework because you cannot stop people from thinking about purple rabbits, in fact if you say purple rabbits enough people can't even stop themselves from thinking about purple rabbits. Thus thinking about purple rabbits cannot be deemed immoral because it is not possible to enforce people to not think about them. As opposed to the initiation of the use of force which can be stopped through ostracism, and other measures. Hope this helps!

Not sure if this has been shared here before but I thought it was definitely something that belonged. It's a support network for stay-at-home, and involved dads. http://athomedad.org/ I love the shirt, hopefully they extend their sales of them.

UNH Bias-Free Language Guide Yes, it has been taken down and disavowed by the university president but the disavowal has also been removed so I'm not sure what to think anymore... Enjoy! https://www.girardatlarge.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Bias-Free-Language-Guide-Inclusive-Excellence-073015.pdf

Yes my first two points were meant to be just silly but I still think they prove my point. "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you." Suicide bombers are following the golden rule so are people who pick fights. If you are in an abusive relationship it is assumed that you want the abuser to be kind to you so you will continue to be kind to the (following the golden rule). If, lets say, thousands of culturally antithetical people are coming into your home, you would want them to help you if you were in need thus, per the golden rule, you will help them in need. As opposed to helping someone in need until it becomes obvious they are taking advantage of you. It doesn't mean you then have to take advantage of them but rather they have no concern for your needs and desires so why should you continue to have a concern for theirs.

So if I want someone to have sex with me should I rape them? If I want others to treat me poorly I should treat them poorly? the golden rule would fall to the same issues that you have with the "bronze rule" as you call it, and it also includes the requirement that if someone is abusing you you must continue to treat them the way you want to be treated thus allowing the abuser to take advantage of your kindness and continue to abuse you, often even more. The way I understand what Stef is saying is that you should treat people the best you possibly can when you first meet them and if they reciprocate, thus showing they care about your side of the interaction as well, then continue along that path. But if they do not reciprocate then you are under no obligation to continue putting your best foot forward since they have shown they do not care enough about you to do the same. Sure, everyone has bad days but if I am meeting someone new most likely I'm going to fake it to be polite and second if I can't manage that I would apologize for seeming rude thus showing I care what the other party is feeling/thinking.

Currently working my way through Paul Bloom's Just Babies and something I came across last night has really stuck with me. In the chapter on "Fairness, Status, and Punishment" he takes a look at the egalitarian mindset and how it has be shown that this mindset appears in even very young children through various experiments and whatnot. He continues by showing how this is complicated by our tendency to gain an advantage for ourselves, and what all of this means pertaining to the culture of sharing and equality that has grown over the past couple of generations. The analogy that has really stuck with me is this: You can see the effects of this kind of thinking all over the place, and even more so now than ever. Look at Europe. The middle east is very much not egalitarian whereas Europe very much is (or at least has been brainwashed into being), thus Europe keeps giving under the assumption that the migrants think like them and the migrants are fighting (all to literally) to get as much as the Europeans will be willing to give them. On the playground. One child is playing with a toy a second child decides they want to play with it as well, and what happens. Mom comes over and says "You need to share." What messages is that simple statement sending to both of those children!? If I'm the child playing with the toy I am in the wrong and always have to give my toy up. If I'm the child wanting the toy, all I have to do is want something and all of a sudden I get it. Think of all of the opportunities and skills children miss out on because of our sharing culture. In stead of learning negotiation skills they learn whining. In stead of learning about respect for property rights they learn how to find the right authority to get what they want. In stead of building strong relationships through learning each others' likes and dislikes, needs and fears, they learn that only their needs and desires matter and everyone else owes them whatever whim they may have at any given time. Lastly, because I know this will come up from anyone new to peaceful parenting or anyone who disagrees with peaceful parenting. The mother in the example above is NOT an example of a peaceful parent. She is an example of a passive parent. It's less time away from facebook for her to just tell her child to share than it would be for her to have actually been paying attention and to sit down and assist the children to figure out a solution to their problem on their own. Beating the child who wants the toy or the child who isn't sharing would reinforce even more that their needs do not matter.

Paul Bloom wrote about this in his 2013 book Just Babies http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CVS0W7K/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1

Not sure what you mean by you don't understand how it fits? Donald Trump is the most unique candidate who, theoretically, has a chance at winning that this country has ever seen. The hatred and propaganda the political machines and the mainstream media are putting out against him reinforce that thinking even more. I don't think putting people in places of power is the best way to solve any problems. If I could snap my fingers and turn this into a free society I would. I know that I can't do that and I also know that other people who are being influenced by the political machines and the mainstream media are going to vote. Thus since the political machines and the mainstream media are spreading lies and propaganda I am going to push back against those lies and propaganda. I'm not sure what my vote has to do with it especially knowing that my vote doesn't really matter anyway. So was that just an excuse? If Facebook is only a business networking tool why are you using it for things other than business networking? Not that I don't think you should spread those ideas as much as possible but it would seem to me that spreading ideas that are counter to what most people think would be bad for business whether or not it has anything to do with Trump. In other words if I'm trying to build a business relationship I'm not going to be telling potential clients their religion is false or that their parents abused them. It seems to me like those things would do the opposite of getting me business. Oh, then if that is true I owe you an apology! Can you point me to the posting you made berating Stef and Mike for saying there may be some positives aspects of Christianity and calling everyone who thinks Christians may have some good values colossal morons as you did here?

I won't vote because I know the political system does not work and nothing is really going to change no matter who is sitting on the throne. Again I also realize other people are going to vote no matter if I do or not and I find the hatred that the political parties and the mainstream media have against such a unique candidate intriguing. The lies and propaganda are not being spread for no reason. I'm curious about these friends you are worried about bringing to FDR because of the reaction they might have to someone pushing back against the lies about Donald Trump. Isn't it kind of insulting to think your friends are so unintelligent that they'll hear one thing they don't like then go running and not give the ideas a chance? If they are that unintelligent why are you surrounding yourself with those kinds of people? And isn't the whole point of philosophy to point out uncomfortable truths to people? If they are that sensitive I'm not sure FDR is a good place for them. Another thing I was thinking of is why aren't you and anyone else posting concerns about Stef's views on Trump also having the same visceral negative reaction to Stef's evolving views on Christians? The Christian faith has had way more of a negative impact on people for way longer than Trump. The Christian faith is way more dangerous than any President ever could be, and the Christian faith has murdered way more people than any president ever could, but you aren't having the same reaction to that as you are about Trump. Even though if you look at it from the viewpoint you have above the situations are almost exactly the same. I'm pretty sure I know why that is. Do you?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/religion/pope-to-wash-feet-of-muslim-orthodox-hindu-migrants/2016/03/24/e72c79d0-f1cd-11e5-a2a3-d4e9697917d1_story.html?wprss=rss_apforsocial Way to go Pope....

Ah, I'm sorry can you show me where you asked me that? I see you'd asked Graham but I try not to speak for other people. Personally I see support to mean two things in this context. The first use of support is to vote for Trump, and the second is to push back against lies spread against him. I am not going to vote for him, or anyone else, but I do think that if you are going to vote for anyone it should be Trump for the reasons I stated above and the many more reasons that have been stated through the various videos Stef and Mike have released. Thus I would fall into the second definition of pushing back against the lies that are put out there to sway the opinions of all of the many other people who will be voting.

OOOOHHHHH, that's the argument: 1. mainstream media, which is owned by the political machines, spreads lies and negative propaganda against Trump 2. Stef, Mike, others correct those lies knowing that people are going to vote. Those same people who are going to vote are being influenced by the lies and negative propaganda. Stef, Mike, and others also know they can't snap their fingers and turn the world into a free society (or they're really holding out on us) 3. Thus Stef, Mike, and others love Donald Trump, think he can do no wrong, want to have his babies, and want the whole world to vote Donald Trump to be king of the universe. You're right that is shameful and the best course of action is definitely to let the lies and propaganda go unchallenged because then Rand Paul will magically get elected and we'll live happily ever after in Libertopia!!! Glad I'm not a scared colossal moron anymore

Is it not moral to point out flasehoods?

Great, so we're in agreement! Why do people think they need rulers? Also, what do you mean by "supporting Trump" anyway?

How do you propose this be accomplished?

I never said it was "good" or "bad" but it is a good reason to support him if you are going to support anyone. However, this is still missing the point which is that people don't even realize how brainwashed they are.

you completely missed my point here. Umm the general population who still think we live in a democracy and all of the people who think that a democracy is the best system and all the people who think we need a government to tell us what to do and all the people who think the government has their best interests at heart. I'm pretty sure there's at least a few people in that camp otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation. Obviously no one is going to snap their fingers and turn everything into a free society therefore we need to take baby steps and educate people. You cannot educate people who are brainwashed by the government controlled media thus if you can begin to show how corrupt the government and the mainstream media is, in real time with indisputable evidence you can, theoretically, take steps into the right direction. Yes a Donald Trump presidency probably would not end well, especially now that the government controlled media have riled people up into believing that he is the reincarnation of Hitler (assuming they don't change their tones here shortly) but the ONLY other options are felons who are completely controlled by the political machines and thus the media which Donald Trump is not. If the media and the political machine were not threatened by Trump and putting out negative PROPAGANDA against him everyone, especially conservatives, would love him. Just like they will shortly with Ted Cruz (Felon and not a US national) just like all of the liberals will switch over to loving Hillary. People do not realize how much they are influenced by the media and the political machines. People don't realize how much the media and the political machines make their decisions for them. People don't realize the candidates are owned by special interests. Donald Trump sheds light on all of that.

Anyone else notice how the republican party is doing to Trump exactly what they were admonishing him for doing only 6 months ago? They needed him to pledge his allegience to them no matter what happened so that the party would stand a chance at beating Hildabeast and now once he finally gave into their wishes are doing everything they can to make sure he doesnt get the nomination. I mean seriously if this election doesnt prove that government and democracy does not work I dont know what will. Btw just listened to the latest show on Trump and the RNC, another good one well worth the listen!

What's really sad about this is how people don't even realize how much they are being brainwashed by the mainstream media to have as strong feelings as this. The media has a huge bias against Donald Trump. That's all there is to it. The evidence is clear. The media gets HUGE advertising revenue from the political machines. The political machines are addicted to power thus they buy all of the candidates. Donald Trump is a threat to the political machines AND is not giving the mainstream media advertising revenue AND is a threat to the entire main stream media propaganda machine. Thus both of those groups (i.e. EVERYTHING everyone sees on TV and EVERYTHING that influences most of the loud mouth's on the internet) have to do everything they can to warp the population's opinions. Yes Trump has some policies I disagree with but it's no different from what anyone else is really saying. It's just that no one else is threatening the establishment. Donald Trump is a huge step toward showing people how corrupt and evil the political system and the mainstream media really is.

Somewhat related...http://globalnews.ca/news/2553178/should-women-be-entitled-to-time-off-work-during-their-periods/ I think we should also pay them overtime during their week off. Yay equality!