Philosophy Now Forum

Do me next!

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 6:19 pm Do me next!

I'm SO entertained!

Good response, H.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 3:28 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 1:40 pm "Self pity"??? I have clinical depression. What's up next, kicking people in wheel chairs?

That's not the only thing you have though. You have facts that you know, speculations that you suspect, and the ability to advance and then defend claims based on the preceding. You have choices that you can make, and you are well aware of your depression and its effects on those choices. In short, you have what you need to participate in debate and assess responses, counter or conceed, all without special pleading.

Not everybody here has that full quota of options.

If you dig a little way through this forum you will find a weird conversation where one guy accuses another guy of being too autistic to understand something written by a thrid guy. If you can locate a three sided coin you might as well flip it to determine which among the three should fling that at which of the other two. Of those nameless three, one is more than capable of debate at the level to be found here, although his unusual proclivities provoke quite a lot of personal abuse, the other two.... not so much tbh.

And there are plenty of others around these parts who appear neurotypical but have compulsive disorders, which can be far more of an encumbrance. Two other characters who have not been around for a while but sort of sucked the air out of the place when they were with us (names should be unecessary for this one) weilded one out of control narcissistic personality disorder and a textbook case of delusional disorder (grandiose type) between them. Neither could properly process information in the way necessary to participate in anything even adjacent to philosophical debate. Neither of them was entirely unique though, and similarly encumbered people wander by every now and then.

We currently have a number of topics on the go from a guy who is so sadly desperate to impress somebody-anybody that he just doesn't care if he is writing utter bollocks, he keeps going when even he knows he has screwed himself, he doesn't seem to know how to stop. I couldn't speculate what underlying sadness propels him, but he most likely doesn't either.

You have multiple advantages over all those people, depression might take choices away from you when you are walking down the street, but in the realm of what to type in a forum by way of philsophical argument, does it really force you to sulk and blame me for your arguments not being good? If you are right about something and I am wrong, you have what you need to take it and make me eat it. I certainly fail to see how depression explains why you wouldn't let me just not want to converse with Daschund if I don't feel like it.




PS... if you are considering the obvious move of asking "what about you you utter mad bastard?" at me, you should first consider the implications for your wheelchair objection. I mean, I'll allow it, it's a valid move, but it's probably not the smart choice.

Fine. You win the whole thing. You're champion of this moment. Enjoy.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 6:19 pm Do me next!

LOL! Thanks, Henry. Needed that!

We live at a time when witty jabs are valued while reason and analyses are out of fashion. I don't much care for fashion so please forgive me if I fail to be witty and just try to use reason. (Yes yes, I know, I'm just a boring old babbling biddy, not sharp enough to deliver good zingers like a true philosopher ...)

As for the OP, nazism is about killing or dominating undesired people, usually those of colour but they can also be Jews, gays, feminists or progressives. Meanwhile, there's over 7.6 billion people in the world, and most of them are brown-skinned. So there is much panic as the dream of WASP world domination disintegrates under the hubris of the US and the divisions of the EU.

This is just the usual tragedy of human existence, where gathering in huge numbers is the most successful survival strategy, but the crowding reduces happiness. Very, very broadly, what keeps us alive also stresses us and makes us miserable.

Both nazism and Chinese communism aim to solve the problem of overcrowding with total control - zero tolerance of opposition in their obsession with perfection and order (note that the most orderly objects in nature are nonliving).

Each of those ideologies identifies "enemies of the state" that must be eradicated like vermin (not fellow humans). As our numbers increase, the value of one life reduces. What is the death of, say, a billion people? Imagine the scale of such an event. It would seem like the ultimate disaster yet in just a decade we'd be back to the same population. Even if Thanos came to Earth and disintegrated half the human population, that would take us back to about 1972 levels.

By contrast, in 1850, the loss of a billion would leave a remnant equivalent to that of the year 600, when the entire world's population was about 200k. Today we add an extra 200k people every two years. So more authoritarian governments are to come. Ultimately, this is because people tend to more value security than freedom. Note that the Chinese (who are not even allowed to mention the bloodshed of the Tainnanmen Square massacre) are not exactly using their great numbers to rise up against Xi, despite and his increasingly unhinged Mao-style posturing (the way he's going, give Xi a decade and I reckon he'll have convinced himself that he's a god as did his hero, Mao).

All we can do is watch the show and try to understand.

Greta wrote:.By contrast, in 1850, the loss of a billion would leave a remnant equivalent to that of the year 600, when the entire world's population was about 200k. ...

How eurocentric of you as around that time the Chinese had an estimated 12,000,000 people.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2019 11:51 pm

Greta wrote:.By contrast, in 1850, the loss of a billion would leave a remnant equivalent to that of the year 600, when the entire world's population was about 200k. ...

How eurocentric of you as around that time the Chinese had an estimated 12,000,000 people.

I think she meant 200 million.

https://www.ecology.com/population-estimates-year-2050/

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:43 pm

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 6:22 am now that i took the time to inform myself (no thanks to -1) i know who commands the armed forces of Canada.

Arising, i'd like to become more informed I'm an ignorant American, who commands the Royal Armed forces? curious.

i could work via google - as i had to with Canada, but lazy, if you could inform me i appreciate it.

thanks!

Depends what you mean by 'command' but the 'commander-in-chief' of the Armed Forces in the UK is the monarch.

and so The Queen (a ceremonial post - like the Canada's Governor General (a rep of the Queen) - which ask an interesting Canadian Constitutional Question, does the GG have independent authority? - i.e. can she call out the Canadian Forces - counter to the Canadian PM and UK Queen - maybe not 100 yrs ago, but it think in theory today yes she could - and legally under Canadian Law) (not sure about this, interesting thing to ponder - i have interest in "rules of law" - including unlikely events that may call up archaic Rules most folks thought long forgotten and dead.

I've digressed toward talking about Canada and her archaic Rules of Law inherited from being a former British Colony, sorry, back to England!

and so per Rule of Law your Nation though a Republic per reasonable assumptions and conduct for these last 150 yrs - confines the Monarch to a ceremonial role (but there is not actual Bill/s from Parlement that has removed the theoretical power of your Monarchy - is that right?).

I think the Queen signed off on Thatcher's declairation of war (or call to arms/etc...not sure what it was - but the arms forces were called out and many Brits and Argies died over a small island )over pride on both sides - Brits were legally correct in this war, but i have seen many Brits disparage Argies (very racist too), as unworthy fighters - when in fact that gave as well as they got in that war, and fought well, and well as died less well (in a manner all die).

So - per your Monarchy - lets try a little historical revisionism and center it around the Falklands War:

1. Lets say Thatcher went to the Queen and said "we must send our armed forces to the Falklands to retake them!", Queen say, i never like that island so much, too cold, and anyway its closer to Argentina. No Margy, let the Argies have it.

what happens? - does the UK follow the Queens command?

2. Reverse the conversation above: Margy wants to let the Argies have the island, Beth says "Hell No"

what happens? - does the UK follow the Queens command?

.......in the latter case, does the MP have to resign and the queen appoint a replacement that will affirm her order for war?

-------------------------------------------

now lets redo the above, but toward say Andorra - for some reason the Queen disslikes the Andorran's dress codes - and order a full invasion, PM objects, queen fires the PM and appoints another/etc until she finds a lacky to carry out the order for war.

does your Queen have this power - the above - ? we are talking extremes here of course, but that is the type of though experiments i like to do in undertanding Rules of Law of other lands.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:43 pm The UK is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy.

yes.

------------

I think it was the Aussie PM Frasier? in early 70's that was removed by the English Queen via her representative (similar post as the Canadian gov General) - it was the "Assie constitutional crisis" (being is assume the Aussies assumed they were indepentant since the 1920's or so - until 54 yrs later were shown they were not.

I wonder if the Aussie Parlament is removed that position, or limited it so as to not allow for another PM removal by the Queens command? (I too lazy to research this - but interested to know).

thanks for reply Foghorn Leghorn!

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:34 pm

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:43 pm

gaffo wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2019 6:22 am now that i took the time to inform myself (no thanks to -1) i know who commands the armed forces of Canada.

Arising, i'd like to become more informed I'm an ignorant American, who commands the Royal Armed forces? curious.

i could work via google - as i had to with Canada, but lazy, if you could inform me i appreciate it.

thanks!

Depends what you mean by 'command' but the 'commander-in-chief' of the Armed Forces in the UK is the monarch. The UK is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy.

A monarchy and a democracy at the same time, sounds kind of contradictory. if push came to shove, which is it really; a monarchy or a democracy? Can the people elect to defy the Queen or can the Queen overrule the Parliament?

exactly.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 6:57 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 2:34 pm

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 1:43 pm
Depends what you mean by 'command' but the 'commander-in-chief' of the Armed Forces in the UK is the monarch. The UK is a constitutional monarchy and a parliamentary democracy.

A monarchy and a democracy at the same time, sounds kind of contradictory. if push came to shove, which is it really; a monarchy or a democracy? Can the people elect to defy the Queen or can the Queen overrule the Parliament?

Like most countries, we grant only very limited powers to our head of state. Most countries in Europe have a president, a handful have kings, in the majority of cases these are virtually powerless roles (excluding France which grants even more powers to their president than America does). The main task falling to all these presidents and kings is to follow some rules about whom to invite to form a government after an election.

In Britain's case, the actual locus of sovereignty is parliament, and specifically the House of Commons. Some stuff remains nominally in the Queen's name, but those are minor powers delegated to the Queen by parliament, not the other way round. There is in short, no way for the Queen to actually issue an order to the British armed forces. The soldiers just line up once in a while for her to hand them badges.

this is all from assumed roles of custom and convention! - what if a mad queen/king decides to ignore convention and demands real power?

has UK parliament laws on the books to prevent this power grab? or left it up to expected custom (and thus still fully legal for a king/queen to seize power - shutdown parliament (king Charle's style), declar marshal law/etc...

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:52 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:12 pm I see. You might want to relay that news to Dachshund, then. He seems to think that everyone answers directly to the wishes of the Queen--even to the point were it to involve beastiality.

That mockney bullshitting tourist? If you are reading his posts that's your problem, I'm bored of watching racists play the how much can I get away with before a mod bans me game, why wouldn't anyone else be?

his ilk are off the leash post trump, shooting jews every week now here in America. they are filth. i hope they go when trump does.

otherwise i fear i'll have to go before we become 1933 ;-/.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:27 pm

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:52 pm

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 8:12 pm I see. You might want to relay that news to Dachshund, then. He seems to think that everyone answers directly to the wishes of the Queen--even to the point were it to involve beastiality.

That mockney bullshitting tourist? If you are reading his posts that's your problem, I'm bored of watching racists play the how much can I get away with before a mod bans me game, why wouldn't anyone else be?

What is a "racism"? And is "racism" completely unfounded? Is banning people from expressing themselves openly the best way to "solve" an issue in dispute? What does it say of the prevailing "wisdom" concerning an issue if the only way to uphold it is to ban or refuse to engage dissenting opinions on the prevailing "wisdom"?

It seems to me that engagement (even with the uncomfortable) is ultimately the philosophical answer. Is it not?

nothing redeming about racism, but fully for letting them speak their filth of all to see and refute. banning is the work of cowards.

FlashDangerpants wrote: ↑Mon Apr 29, 2019 9:53 pm I am not bothering with him specifically because it is a dialogue of the deaf.

concur, well said Sir.

strait and to the point.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:32 am
But what about other whites--whites who don't run around barking such overt insults.

some are, just as some Black are Racists - refer to the Black Hebrw Israelites and Black Muslims - both religious groups that number in the millions - most members are not Racists, but many of them are - and thier formal Religious Dogma is clearly racist, if you take the time to learn of what it is you will see this.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:32 am According to some theories of what constitutes being a "racist", we are--just by virtue of being white and living in a society that generally favors whites over POC. (Hence my question of "what is racism".) Do you think that is the case? Or do you think it's just the overt bigots who get that moniker?

you are confusing Racism with Discrimination.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:32 am I also asked whether "racism" is completely unfounded. So for example, knowing what happened to their ancestors at the hands of other peoples who invaded their territories, are aboriginal peoples of the Americas and South Pacific (Australia and NZ) not justified to be wary of racial strangers to their tribes.

Yes, since i deny "inherited sin" - as Ezikeal said the "Sins of the father will not be passed down to the son: - refer to the Torah work.

any American Indian that hates me for being white due to what other whites did to their ancestors (even if none of my direct ancestors shot at them) is a racist thug.

BTW some ancestors of American Indians in Ohio killed 5 or a family of 7 in 1830 - i am a decendant of one of the two kids that survived that settler raid.

should i hate American Indians for that act 190 yrs ago?

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:32 am I mean, even today, to live on an American Indian reservation in North America you generally have to have some American Indian DNA in you. If you don't, then you generally can't just up and decide to join their tribe. Is that unjustified or is that "racism"?

is this so? im interested in Rule of Law issues.

do note that Reservations are Soviern Tribal lands - the treaties we made with them have been upheld in our Courts for 150 yrs now.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:32 am What about we whites? If it came to the point where our predominately white societies were inundated by non-whites to the point where we didn't represent a voting majority but rather a small minority, should we be concerned--in case we were to become victims of their "racism" in the future?

Not as long as our land obeys the Rule of Law - our colorblind Constitution.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:32 am I mean, speaking of South Africa, I've heard a few horror stories concerning being white in some countries in Africa. I don't know how true they are but the ones I've heard sound pretty scary.

yes, white farmers in Zimbabwa are being forced off thier land by thugs - harrasing and beating and even killing - while the gov turns a blind eye (corrupt).

it is now speading to South Africa too. not pretty, but sadly thugs tend to take over when the gov is too weak or too corrupt to uphold the Rule of Law.

hopefully SA can get its act together and return to Mandala's vision of a color blind and just universal humanist society.

we shall see.

Gary Childress wrote: ↑Tue Apr 30, 2019 4:32 am Maybe it's very easy for you to discern answers to these things but for me I'm a little unsure sometimes.

it is wise to be uncertain in an turbulent world.