Fruit_Inspector

Instead of a nation being controlled by a racist leader to serve selfish goals at the peril of other nations...

Your idea of "facism" is the opposite of real, historic facism.

The dictator is replaced by an oligarchy of technocrats.

Thats a flaw of capitalism itself. I say we give more economic power and freedom to the people in the world. In the name of democracy and FAIR capitalism.

What is your suggestion? How do we improve capitalism without "making a deal with the devil" (that is humanity as a whole).

The economy is becomming financialised: that means, businesses care more about money than being good businesses and serving their customers.

We need to have an positive economy that benefits society, and money often incentivises the opposite. 

Capitalism should be about being the best, but today big business is a race to be the biggest badest villain to the employee and to society. We need to change the goals. First off, we need to focus on stakeholder value. Companies ought to prioritize their impact on workers and customers, not just the owners.

Capitalism is great but not without flaws -- and the biggest one is that everyone is incentivised to give no fucks about the world.

• What aspect of capitalism (be very specific) gives incentive for everyone to only care about profit and not care about the well-being of others?
  
• What aspect of capitalism (be very specific) would you change, and how would that cause companies to prioritize their impact on society rather than greedy profiteering?
  
• Who are the stakeholders whose values will be prioritized, and what specific role will they play in shaping the business practices of a company under your proposed changes?
  
• What means will stakeholders have to enforce these practices to ensure companies follow through?
• What authority does the company/shareholder have to veto the proposals of stakeholders?

To ensure that both people and the planet prosper, four key stakeholders play a crucial role. They are: governments (of countries, states, and local communities); civil society (from unions to NGOs, from schools and universities to action groups); companies (constituting the private sector, whether freelancers or large multinational companies); and the international community (consisting of international organizations such as the UN as well as regional organizations such as the European Union or ASEAN)...It leads to the stakeholder model as we know it today, valid anywhere in the world. When the well-being of people and planet are at the center of business, the four remaining key groups of stakeholders contribute to their betterment. As all of these groups and their goals are interconnected. One cannot succeed if the others fail.

(https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/01/klaus-schwab-on-what-is-stakeholder-capitalism-history-relevance/)

When he founded the [World Economic Forum] in 1973, [Klaus] Schwab wrote the original Davos Manifesto aimed at urging corporate managers to reject shareholders and embrace a larger role as promoters of societal priorities. With that Davos Manifesto, the WEF now claims, “Stakeholder capitalism was born.”

Not quite. University of Calgary economist Randall Morck, editor of A History of Corporate Governance Around the World, sets the origins of legalized stakeholderism in Germany and the passage of the National Socialist government’s Shareholder Law of 1937. The law, writes Morck, “freed corporate managers and directors of their specific fiduciary duty to shareholders and substituted a general duty to all stakeholders.”

More proof of how evolution works.

A well-known conservative activist in Arlington, Texas, who peddled COVID-19 vaccine misinformation has died of complications caused by the virus—just a few weeks after attending a “symposium” against the shots. 

The Arlington Republican Party confirmed the passing of Kelly Canon on Facebook. 

“Another tragedy and loss for our Republican family. Our dear friend Kelly Canon lost her battle with pneumonia today. Kelly will be forever in our hearts as a loyal and beloved friend and Patriot. Gone way too soon We will keep her family in our prayers,” the Arlington Republican Club said in a statement. 

Kelly Ernby should get a Darwin Award.

• "anti-vaxxers who are perpetuating their white supremacist nationalism through science-denying conspiracy theories and misinformation, which is as great of an attack on our democracy as the terrorists who breached the sacred halls of our Capitol on the worst day in U.S. history - January 6th - the day when Trump explicitly told people to murder AOC and commit a violent insurrection that was obviously premeditated and not in any way just a large crowd of people being instigated by federal agents or anything like that"
  

I'm just showing how evolution works.

I don't get the goal of either100 percent vaccination or universal vaccine passport policies knowing that vaccinated people can spread all variants known and unknown.

the only question you need to answer is

are desires chosen by will

Will is the ability to have priorities and make choices with future results in mind.

This is just a simpler way of saying that the physical brain choses which neurons to fire based on how it has been molded by neuroplasticity.

Then we pretty much agree that choice is bound by what preceeded it. Any such choice is by definition deterministic unless it's random.

humans are slaves to their desires - desires are not chosen

• We are discussing whether or not human will is free.
  

• Choice cannot violate physical determinism or the determinism of a creator's will.
  

How free do you believe our will is, and what evidence supports your view.

The irony of everyone here posting to their own will supporting the most ridiculous notion that they have no will is hilarious.

This is, of course, a lie.

Please identify one insurrectionist who is being held without a trial date- just flat out false.

Jose Lino Padilla

I encourage you to find a trial date for him. 

Do you believe in free will, if so, could you define it and provide evidence for it?

How do you reconsile free will with belief in an omnicient creator God?

There are very strong and clear arguments for free will being an illusion regardless of whether or not God exists. Do you ignore these or do you have rebutalls?

Whatever we do is already a part of the universe's trajectory, so our actions changing it makes no logical sense.

Our actions do change the trajectory of other people, and that is ultimately what matters.

If anything, the notion that our actions directly controll the future should amplify our desire for virtue.

School shooters on the other hand have already made a decision to massacre before comming to School.

Factually speaking, a criminal is nothing more than a human with a smaller og bigger problem;

and they certainly didn't all consciously chose to become criminal.

I am saying that scientifically speaking, how we act is 100% determined by the past. Only the yet poorly understood quantum mechanical randomness could serve as a rebutall.

Scientists have known for quite a while that human choices are facilitated by biological processes controlled by external physical laws. The idea of free will as "the ability to have chosen otherwise" might fall solely on this fact: that we could not have acted differently without breaking the laws of physics.

1. The Christian (and Jewish because OT is where it's revealed more) God is a narcissist in every way, yet being self-serving and egomanic yourself is considered a pride-based sinful way of living life and acting.

Satan/Devil doesn't add up. How is it that an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent God is incapable of preventing the evil tempting, persuading and possessing of people and that this guy who was supposed to be suffering in hell ends up getting a joyride running the place?

The biggest contradictions is not within the bible - it is between the bible and reality.

Yes, the contradiction is if Jesus is God’s “only begotten Son,” then how can angels and Christians also be God’s sons?

Although you can get pregnant without having sexual intercourse, pregnancy without sperm is impossible.

Naturalistic thinking and knowing, the tacit, experiential, and intuitive reasoning of everyday interaction, have long been regarded as inferior to formal reason and labeled primitive, fallible, subjective, superstitious, and in some cases ineffable. It is the type of thinking that created a God that banged a 14 year old virgin to get his son.

If sin must be in us and be a necessary part of Yahweh's plan, which it clearly is as sung by Christians, and confirmed by scriptures, then without it we go extinct.

I learned that Christianity is a take off on naturalistic thinking, which confirms the stupidity of supernatural beliefs.

Also, that if man fails, it is not God's doing either, nor God's "plan".

Seriously? that man is accountable for his own actions, not the actions of another....and not any supposed original sins, but that which he does himself. 

"You have given no justification for your assertion that sinlessness will make humans go extinct."

I have but you did not get it.

Evolutionary theology posits that all we ever do as we evolve is cooperate or compete. 

Cooperation is seen as good because no loser is created.

Competition is seen as evil because it creates a loser to the competition.

All human to human conflict stems from us competing.

It is a shame you do not really want to consider both the Christian Original Sin concept and Jewish view or Original Virtue on this.

Bottom line.

You do not sin, you go extinct.

Sin is necessary to our evolution.

Are you saying that God would logically want his great plan derailed?

We are talking interpretation that are in conflict between Christian and Jewish interpretation of a Jewish myth.

Not wise to ignore them. Original Virtue and our passing the tests in Eden with out happy fault of sinning.

As I stated, without it we would go extinct.

Numbers 14:18. The Lord is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. KJV

He certainly appears to be a contradictory fellow.

...and RM regularly denies that the Earth is round. I suppose that technically speaking any degree of opposition makes an idea controversial and therefore every idea is controversial but I was speaking more generally of American societal norms.

Your claim was that employee mandates would "seem odd." My argument is that such mandates are correctly seen as generally accepted by American society for the past couple of generations (and therefore not "odd").

• It would seem odd to make access to employment and other such important aspects of society contingent upon annual or biannual vaccinations for all eligible adults indefinitely.
  

Whether you watch FOX News is irrelevant to the point that FOX serves as the primary gatekeeper and distribution node for most right-wing propaganda and disinformation.

As we established in our earlier discussion of CRT, your misuse of those initials as a euphemism for civil rights stems from Tucker Carlson's deliberate decision to misuse that term in Sept 2020, whether you ever watched FOX or not. 

The notion of ivermectin as a potential treatment for COVID had been floating around for months, mostly within the least credible circles of social media hell until Tucker Carlson began to call social media crackdowns censorship beginning Jun 12, 2021. By September, ivermectin sales increased 30 fold in spite of FDA warnings. When FOX News pushed anti-vax last summer, the right-wing went anti-vax. When FOX stopped pushing (mostly) in Oct, resistance to vaccines rapidly quiesced. Whether you know it or not, FOX News controls what right-wing America thinks to a depressingly potent degree.

Are you talking about anti-vaxxers who are against all vaccines, [or] anti-vaxxers who support all vaccines except the new mRNA vaccines [?]

Both of these as I see little enough difference in the quality or nature of arguments vs. either to merit distinction.

What you don't seem to realize is that money-making is the goal here, if plan A makes less money than plan B they will want to go with plan B.

Hypothetically speaking if Ivermectin was an effective treatment for COVID and nobody knew it except for the drug companies then what you describe is not an efficient money-making option.

• Treating only people that have COVID-19 with a drug that has an expired patent like Ivermectin?
  
• Vaccinating the entire global population with a patented vaccine that loses significant efficacy around six months and has the potential for unlimited boosters?

Here's the kicker: it doesn't allow us to get back to normal, this has always been their goal

We didn't feel that way about flu shots when they started becoming regularly promoted, when? 15-20 yrs ago. Before the pandemic, most hospital jobs mandated a flu vaccine uncontroversially, most schools mandated a series of vaccines uncontroversially.

Before FOX and Trump decided to try to divide the nation about the issue, regular vaccinations had been a very normal part of American society for more than 50 years.

What seems odd is the present popularity of the once fringe philosophies of anti-vaxxers in the face of overwhelming evidence of the safety and effectiveness of vaccinations.