Philosophy Now Forum

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 10:13 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 1:44 am

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 8:57 pm

How can you tell when somebody is trying to mislead you? Nick ,and Henry, are victims of mis-selling. Do either of you know what divisive means?

You are implying that liberty and the Constitution are not worth defending. It is divisive to do so? Freedom of thought is what got Socrates killed, He was divisive and disturbed the peace

“I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” ~ Barry Goldwater

Yes defense of liberty is divisive. It is insulting and intolerable to those opposing liberty. Some prefer moderation and the slow politically correct descent into statist slavery. You have to choose: liberty or slavery.

But liberty is inconsistent with equality. The thing we need to do is find a happy enough balance between liberty and equality. And finding a happy enough balance is what democracy is for.

Your term "statist slavery" is part of the populist vocabulary. America is a democratic country so that term tells a lie.

“Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom, socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent, a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

Do you favor equality in liberty or equality in restraint and servitude?

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 3:37 pm Nick wrote:

Do you favor equality in liberty or equality in restraint and servitude?

Willing service to others and restraint of reactive passions deliver freedom for individuals. These are necessary but not sufficient conditions for human freedom. You'd need to add freedom of thought, speech, and assembly.

If liberty for individuals involves deprivation and cruelty for some then that form of liberty is an evil and is deprivation of freedom.

'Liberty' is a fine sounding word but is has been distorted by libertarians to mean laissez faire callousness. The Guillotine itself made the word 'liberty' an ugly word.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 10:07 pm

Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace.
Simone Weil

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:00 am It appears that Trump doesn't want to concede his loss. Not sure if that makes a difference or not. I assume come January he's going to be leaving the Whitehouse one way or another, either voluntarily or involuntarily. I don't think he can just sit in that seat and hold onto power for life. But I'm not 100% sure. I don't think there's ever been a situation quite like this one for us.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:42 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:00 am It appears that Trump doesn't want to concede his loss. Not sure if that makes a difference or not. I assume come January he's going to be leaving the Whitehouse one way or another, either voluntarily or involuntarily. I don't think he can just sit in that seat and hold onto power for life. But I'm not 100% sure. I don't think there's ever been a situation quite like this one for us.

If America is to retain the freedoms it still has it is imperative that the government proves to the electorate that it still has legitimate elections and has not sunk to the corrupt level of a banana republic. Trump has the obligation to prove to American citizens that this election was not determined by fraud. If he just surrendered now it means that America and its citizens are not worth proving a legitimate election.

Is the preservation of liberty worth proving that this election was legitimate? If not then we want a banana republic and why the great banana peel rebellion is sure to follow if the government including the Supreme court doesn't do its duty regardless of the violence to follow in response.

Enjoy a banana but save the peel. Flatten it out to fit in an envelope and be ready to send it to the DNC if the results prove now that America is a banana republic the goal is a thousand banana peels day to protest becoming a banana republic

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:38 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 10:07 pm

Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace.
Simone Weil

I suppose for theists, "grace" is essentially what atheists would refer to as "good fortune". The only difference being that "good fortune" can be random to some extent and completely out of one's control whereas "grace" seems to suggest that God only awards it to those in his (or her) favor and that it is, therefore, something that can be attained through directed effort. Personally, I think I would prefer the theistic world over the atheistic. But of course, preference and truth may not be the same thing.

Does God punish unbelievers or does he only punish the wicked? And for that matter, what is wicked and what is not? Is not believing "wicked"? I assume murder would be. But I suppose God doesn't want us to aim low and simply not be murderers. If religious texts are correct, then it seems that God wants more from us than that. It seems like ultimately we are supposed to strive for some kind of perfection. I suppose falling short of perfection is, therefore to be "wicked". Or is it simply to be "wretched"?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:48 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:42 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:00 am It appears that Trump doesn't want to concede his loss. Not sure if that makes a difference or not. I assume come January he's going to be leaving the Whitehouse one way or another, either voluntarily or involuntarily. I don't think he can just sit in that seat and hold onto power for life. But I'm not 100% sure. I don't think there's ever been a situation quite like this one for us.

If America is to retain the freedoms it still has it is imperative that the government proves to the electorate that it still has legitimate elections and has not sunk to the corrupt level of a banana republic. Trump has the obligation to prove to American citizens that this election was not determined by fraud. If he just surrendered now it means that America and its citizens are not worth proving a legitimate election.

Is the preservation of liberty worth proving that this election was legitimate? If not then we want a banana republic and why the great banana peel rebellion is sure to follow if the government including the Supreme court doesn't do its duty regardless of the violence to follow in response.

Enjoy a banana but save the peel. Flatten it out to fit in an envelope and be ready to send it to the DNC if the results prove now that America is a banana republic the goal is a thousand banana peels day to protest becoming a banana republic

In what way was the election fraudulent? If anything it is a much clearer election than 2016 when the popular vote lost to the electoral vote. Is there any evidence for this fraud? And why should we only assume that the alleged fraud was against Trump and that there were not also cases of fraud against Biden?

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:03 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:38 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Mon Nov 09, 2020 10:07 pm

Humanism was not wrong in thinking that truth, beauty, liberty, and equality are of infinite value, but in thinking that man can get them for himself without grace.
Simone Weil

I suppose for theists, "grace" is essentially what atheists would refer to as "good fortune". The only difference being that "good fortune" can be random to some extent and completely out of one's control whereas "grace" seems to suggest that God only awards it to those in his (or her) favor and that it is, therefore, something that can be attained through directed effort. Personally, I think I would prefer the theistic world over the atheistic. But of course, preference and truth may not be the same thing.

Does God punish unbelievers or does he only punish the wicked? And for that matter, what is wicked and what is not? Is not believing "wicked"? I assume murder would be. But I suppose God doesn't want us to aim low and simply not be murderers. If religious texts are correct, then it seems that God wants more from us than that. It seems like ultimately we are supposed to strive for some kind of perfection. I suppose falling short of perfection is, therefore to be "wicked". Or is it simply to be "wretched"?

Clearly you don't know what grace is. Does it really make any sense that a divine spirit has nothing better to do than condemning immorality and rewarding human beings asleep in Plato's cave by good fortune like winning the lottery? Yet this is modern Christianity.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:07 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:48 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:42 am

If America is to retain the freedoms it still has it is imperative that the government proves to the electorate that it still has legitimate elections and has not sunk to the corrupt level of a banana republic. Trump has the obligation to prove to American citizens that this election was not determined by fraud. If he just surrendered now it means that America and its citizens are not worth proving a legitimate election.

Is the preservation of liberty worth proving that this election was legitimate? If not then we want a banana republic and why the great banana peel rebellion is sure to follow if the government including the Supreme court doesn't do its duty regardless of the violence to follow in response.

Enjoy a banana but save the peel. Flatten it out to fit in an envelope and be ready to send it to the DNC if the results prove now that America is a banana republic the goal is a thousand banana peels day to protest becoming a banana republic

In what way was the election fraudulent? If anything it is a much clearer election than 2016 when the popular vote lost to the electoral vote. Is there any evidence for this fraud? And why should we only assume that the alleged fraud was against Trump and that there were not also cases of fraud against Biden?

This is not the time to argue fraud. Once Trump's lawyers present their case to the supreme court, then the time is right.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:23 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:07 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 2:48 am

In what way was the election fraudulent? If anything it is a much clearer election than 2016 when the popular vote lost to the electoral vote. Is there any evidence for this fraud? And why should we only assume that the alleged fraud was against Trump and that there were not also cases of fraud against Biden?

This is not the time to argue fraud. Once Trump's lawyers present their case to the supreme court, then the time is right.

Oh. Excuse me, Mr. official when it's time to discuss fraud keeper. I had no idea I was going against your righteous authority.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:36 am

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:23 am

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 3:07 am

This is not the time to argue fraud. Once Trump's lawyers present their case to the supreme court, then the time is right.

Oh. Excuse me, Mr. official when it's time to discuss fraud keeper. I had no idea I was going against your righteous authority.

No righteous authority but just common sense and respect for the law. We have a presidential accusation of fraud. The evidence must be organized and eventually presented in a legal orderly fashion in front of the Supreme court. Otherwise it is just a he said she said debate. America is worth something better than this