Total posts: 3,943
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
Thinking on it some more,
I suppose part of it depends on one's interpretation of God.
Some depict God as impersonally viewing people throughout their lives, blank face, blank stare, unfeeling, uncaring, just observing, not helping.
But I imagine such does not fit some other's view of God, who they claim as good,
Claim we to be made in Gods image.
I imagine such people view God as being in our pain 'with us.
“And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were doing it to me!’
I imagine such people active in their belief in God, their use of the Bibles teachings.
"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me."
"and in the wilderness. There you saw how the LORD your God carried you, as a father carries his son, all the way you went until you reached this place.”
I imagine they see signs and possibilities in many places.
Though I discount them myself.
Of course, people pick and choose what they like or think is 'right in the Bible,
View it through their own lenses.
But eh, isn't that the way of humans.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
@#173
It's nice to be appreciated, though my knowledge is pretty shallow,
I still like talking about religion from time to time, and having a reason to Google it.
I don't know why the Biblical God didn't/doesn't give/make his existence more obvious.
(Theoretically speaking as I'm still an Atheist)
If one goes by the Bible literally,
Even 'when people saw miracles or believed in God,
They sure disobeyed and lacked faith a lot.
Bible is full of such. A lot.
Even contemporary life, has many believers,
Who yet act towards their own interests and desires, commit crimes, sins.
Or individuals with a 'seeming spiritual blindness, physical sight not equating to spiritual insight.
New International Version
"This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand."
Course it seems probable that 'some people would believe if they saw, or understand what they hear.
But maybe they wouldn't see or hear what was 'important.
Perhaps there is something in our uncertainty, yet wanting the right of existence.
"He [God] wants them to learn to walk and must therefore take away His hand; and if only the will to walk is really there He is pleased even with their stumbles. Do not be deceived, Wormwood. Our cause is never more in danger, than when a human, no longer desiring, but intending, to do our Enemy's will, looks round upon a universe from which every trace of Him seems to have vanished, and asks why he has been forsaken, and still obeys."
— The Screwtape Letters, letter VIII, C. S. Lewis
I don't think the above 'sufficiently answers your question,
But it is where my mind went with the question, minus 25%-50% after I accidentally closed my internet browser and had to retype it.
.
@#175
Darn, that 'does sound like one of those God commanded sections.
Well, one 'could argue that God did not want any chance that the Israelites would adopt any of their culture.
In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.”
Of course one could argue that babies 'have no culture,
Might have been a lot of babies though, as well as children,
What's the cut off for when one has no culture?
Did the Israelites have enough means to take care of all the babies of everyone they killed?
I suppose one could argue God could have just made food,
But then why do we have to hunger or die at all?
. . . Religious people often believe in an afterlife,
Is a human lifespan that long compared to X? I say X as I don't know what an afterlife 'would be.
But of course such thinking leads towards a disregard of life,
And potential of ends justifying means if in Gods name,
Course God also says don't murder.
Begging the question on my part I think, but there is a reason this was the last question from your initial post I answered, and even when I answered, tries to avoid.
Ah well, gets me thinking on the question at least, I suppose.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
@Best.Korea
@Sidewalker
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
Then, there's the minor genocide god oversees in Joshua 6:21 (NIV):They devoted the city to the Lord and destroyed with the sword every living thing in it—men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.
Well, for one, in this part of the Bible, does God say to destroy every living thing, or did Joshua?
I 'could engage more fully with your post, by talking about other examples in the Bible where God does the flood or orders Saul to kill a bunch of things,
But if you don't engage with your own thread. . . Eh.
Where does the Bible say spare the virgins for the men to rape?
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Certainly are enough crime against conventionally good people in America,
Robberies, school shootings, serial killers.
Not that I want or think it would be good for such people to target less conventionally good people.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
I lean towards the law, as well as individual and community efforts.
To murder someone seems an extreme,
Not an 'unimaginable extreme.
But the nation would have to be 'pretty bad for me to think of it highly as an option.
America is a country of freedom, people 'have options, they are able to form new communities, and seek out like minded people.
We actively participate in many evils towards others,
Whether the meat industry or sweatshops.
People should look towards their own sins.
"So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her."
Assassination of individuals in a society becomes war.
More than many nations, America is a nation of many peoples, many beliefs.
I can imagine some Anti-Theist killing Theist Pastors,
Or a Theist killing Atheist promoters.
. . .
I cannot say I recall reading of many vigilantes in real life,
Not that they have not occurred.
If one knows of another's misdeeds or illegal activities,
I'd rather they try to expose them,
Though such does not always work,
I do not think vigilante murder always works either.
. . .
I can imagine people killing peddlers of meth,
What then of peddlers of marijuana? People once had a much harsher view of it,
What then of peddlers of alcohol, cigarettes?
. . .
I enjoyed reading the manga Akumetsu
I enjoyed watching The Boondock Saints (1999)
I enjoyed the Rorschach in Watchmen Alan Moore comic and (2009) movie.
I am reminded of Death Note, Law Abiding Citizen (2009), Pay booth (2002).
Didn't really like those last three that much.
I haven't seen Dexter (TV Series)
. . .
I don't recall if I've debated the subject before, possibly an interesting debate subject.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
Well, I've heard it said that being tall can help people into various leadership positions.
So long as it doesn't cause him health conditions, who knows.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Various rural cultures have individuals who have practiced bestiality, doesn't mean it's the cultures 'norm or encouraged value.
I admit I don't know much about Islam or the Middle East,
"According to hadith, bestiality is defined under zina and its punishment is execution of the accused man or woman along with the animal.[3][10]"
But that doesn't 'sound like they encourage it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IlDiavolo
Matthew 5:38 to Matthew 5:48
“You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’
But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well.
And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles.
Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’
But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust.
For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same?
And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same?
You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
(38) An eye for an eye.--Here again the scribes first took their stand on the letter, regardless of the aim and purpose, of the Law, and then expanded it in a wrong direction. As originally given, it was a check on the "wild justice" of revenge. It said, where the equilibrium of right had been disturbed by outrage, that the work of the judge was not to do more than restore the equilibrium, unless, as in the case of theft, some further penalty was necessary for the prevention of crime. It was, in its essence, a limit in both directions. Not less than the "eye for an eye," for that might lead to connivance in guilt; not more, for that would open a fresh score of wrong. The scribes in their popular casuistry made the rule one not of judicial action only, but of private retaliation; and it was thus made the sanction of the vindictive temper that forgives nothing.
But I tell you
This phrase marks a significant transition in Jesus' teaching, contrasting His message with traditional interpretations of the Law. The Greek word for "tell" is "λέγω" (legō), which implies a declaration of truth with authority. Jesus, as the divine Logos, speaks with the ultimate authority, offering a new understanding that fulfills and transcends the old covenant. This authoritative teaching is a hallmark of His ministry, emphasizing His role as the ultimate interpreter of God's will.
Why should the direction of forgiveness, kindness be wrong?
Penguin Classics Tao Te Ching
XLIX
110 The sage has no mind of his own. He takes as his own the
mind of the people.
111 Those who are good I treat as good. Those who are not
good I also treat as good. In doing so I gain in goodness.
Those who are of good faith I have faith in. Those who are
lacking in good faith I also have faith in. In doing so I gain
in good faith.
112 The sage in his attempt to distract the mind of the empire
seeks urgently to muddle it. The people all have something
to occupy their eyes and ears, and the sage treats them all
like children.
Do you have a source for the Ancient Egyptian Law?
"In ancient Egypt, rape was punishable by death. And if the offender was a foreigner, he might be lucky enough to be exiled. Men who were guilty of rape were often castrated. During Ottoman rule, rape was a common occurrence in the lands governed by the Ottoman sultans, which for a long time included Egypt, but it was criminalized under both Sharia law and the laws of the sultanate."
This site says it was punishable by death, but then gives two exceptions,
Ancient Egypt 'sounds a large time frame of many laws,
Laws often more complicated than they might seem at first glance.
I don't think it helps you convince people when you insult others.
. . .
I don't think people are 'wrong to look at the Bible and have questions,
Nor do I think people are wrong to think on, search for, or suggest answers.
Created:
Posted in:
“’Do not curse the deaf or put a stumbling block in front of the blind, but fear your God. I am the LORD."
Works both literally and figuratively I'd suppose.
Created:
Posted in:
What 'are the requirements to getting into various afterlives?
So many different religions, I'm not 'really looking for an answer,
Just an idle random thought.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (NIV):When you go to war against your enemies and the Lord your God delivers them into your hands and you take captives, if you notice among the captives a beautiful woman and are attracted to her, you may take her as your wife.And of course, these people are going to go to heaven. They got permission from god to do these things, whereas atheists completely deserve eternal torment for keeping an open mind. - Owen_T #1
Bring her into your home and have her shave her head, trim her nails
and put aside the clothes she was wearing when captured. After she has lived in your house and mourned her father and mother for a full month, then you may go to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife.
If you are not pleased with her, let her go wherever she wishes. You must not sell her or treat her as a slave, since you have dishonored her."
What is there to explain?
'Does the Bible say atheists will or deserve eternal torment for keeping an open mind?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
I'm not sure that follows.
If person A commits a crime,
And person B commits the same crime,
That doesn't mean person A didn't commit more crimes,
Or crimes with different motivations,
Or other worse crimes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What would/could the sentencing/consequences have been?
. . .Disregarding Biden saying he wouldn't.
I suppose people can 'understand,
Whether people would like Biden more or less for said decision varies I imagine.
Some people prefer the humanity of a father,
Or think that it 'was politically motivated,
Still, some people might be irritated by the parental exception.
"Just think how many sons ended in camps! Who would swap them for Paulus? Were they worse than Yakov?"
Colonel Moscardó was called on the telephone by the chief of the Worker's Militia, Commissar Cándido Cabello, on the morning of July 23 in Toledo and told that if the Alcázar were not surrendered within ten minutes, Moscardó's 24-year-old son, Luis, who had been captured earlier in the day, would be executed. Moscardó asked to speak to his son and his son asked what he should do. "Commend your soul to God," he told his son, "and die like a patriot, shouting,'¡Viva Cristo Rey!' and '¡Viva España!' The Alcázar does not surrender." "That," answered his son, "I can do." Luis was immediately shot, contrary to the rumour that he was not in fact shot until a month later "in reprisal for an air raid".
Still, FLRW makes a fair example with Trump,
I 'assume that Trump is worst in this use of executive privilege than Biden.
@Self
Taxes are confusing.
People don't agree with all laws or outcomes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I prefer to think of it as caution, than fear.
Or as having higher regard or definition of what friendship entails.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
Eh, I'm close to my family,
Have a friend from High School I talk often with, was his Best Man at his wedding,
Though I think I was third or something on his list of possible Best Men.
I communicate on Discord pretty often with 3RU7AL
Talk with a person I met on Debate.org now and then on Discord, I forget what their username on that site was.
But still, we talk about our lives now and then.
. . .
Still, I 'do dislike friendship a 'bit,
I dislike 'losing friendship. Can't be betrayed if you never let anyone get close.
I dislike the obligations of friendship,
I feel more duty to a person when I 'call them 'friend, than if I call them a friendly acquaintance.
I sometimes dislike people taking up my time or attention, as I feel 'obligated to do for friends, more than acquaintances.
I like having my own time and thinking my own thoughts.
Though, I 'do like talking with people, often enough.
I enjoy having people I trust 'somewhat.
Or people whose company I enjoy from time to time.
Created:
Posted in:
I assume people can be more or less masochistic,
Just because they are so, doesn't mean one should 'encourage such a movement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
"the jubilee. In Israel - ALL Slaves were to be released after 7 years. that was the law. Effectively their time of slavery was an indenture - a type of mortgage. that didn't happen in other countries. To buy your freedom was unheard of - for many years."
Did that apply to 'all slaves,
Or only slaves who practiced or adopted Judaism?
Created:
Posted in:
"Broadly, the Biblical and Talmudic laws tended to consider slavery a form of contract between persons, theoretically reducible to voluntary slavery, unlike chattel slavery, where the enslaved person is legally rendered the personal property (chattel) of the slave owner. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_slavery#:~:text=20–22).-,Freeing%20a%20slave,the%20Talmud%20codified%20and%20expanded.
Is it more moral to kill your enemies or enslave them?
To let your enemies free to attack you again, or to enslave them?
To rob your enemy of all possessions and likely to die of starvation, or to enslave them?
Of course there's something to be said for kindness,
"If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink."
"In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you."
Burning coals of conscience I hope.
Receiving kindness, seeing empathy, forgiveness, opportunity for peace.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Heh.
Glancing at Wikipedia
It 'does look to me as though there are/were more procedures for conversion to Judaism than Islam.
But I don't know how much of an expansionist of their religion Judaism and it's various nations were in the past.
Though maybe Jews 'did have more traditional slaves in the exact moment that one law about slave beating was spoken.
Though there have been 'many different kinds of slavery throughout history.
I just offered it as argument of people having different definitions and systems in different moments of history.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
One view could be
"since the servant is his property
The term "property" here is translated from the Hebrew word "כֶּסֶף" (kesef), which literally means "silver" or "money," but in this context, it refers to the economic value or investment the owner has in the servant. This phrase reflects the socio-economic realities of the time, where servants were considered part of a household's assets. However, it is crucial to understand this within the broader biblical narrative, which includes numerous laws aimed at protecting the rights and dignity of servants, such as the Year of Jubilee and the prohibition against harsh treatment."
There are current and past American laws I imagine, that entail punishment for various actions or failures of actions for individuals in society or individuals in companies.
Like not paying your taxes, probably 'some type of action is taken against people for that,
Or not paying debt, or child support.
America mandates companies give their workers bathroom breaks I assume,
America doesn't mandate that everyone gets free money and doesn't have to work.
Are you bothered that God doesn't fix everything every instant?
Or didn't make the world perfect according to your morals?
Eh, some people like the idea of free will,
Or some people think that we lost the Garden of Eden,
Some people assume there's possibly some unknown reason, since they don't 'quite know what this all is, what we are, came from going to, why.
Personally, I'm still an Atheist though.
. . .
- "It is not a synonym to slavery as we know it. A bondman is an intermediate state between being a gentile and converting to Judaism. As long as he serves his master he’s a “half-Jew” and needs to observe all Mitzvot that women observe, incl. all 365 negative ones. After he is sent free he becomes a Jew.
- Bondmanship is only possible when the Jews have the Supreme Court of 71, which is only at times of the Temple in Jerusalem.
- Becoming a servant is a willing decision, nobody can force a man into this contract. He sells himself for a sum of money, that stays his and can be used when he’s freed back. This contract has a positive side - the master is responsible for providing him with all his basic needs. Sometimes it is worth it."
Heh,
Rowan Atkinson Live - Headmaster kills student
Created:
Posted in:
I recall liking Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954)
When I watched it as a kid.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@rosends
I know you're not a Christian, but there's some overlap between Christians and Jews.
What's your take on Deuteronomy 22:28?
I know Owen_T has more questions,
But I'm just curious about the one, since I'm slow in deciphering meanings sometimes.
Created:
Posted in:
I sometimes muse on my Atheism,
One of the reasons I became an Atheist, was the difficulty of ascertaining certainty in the Bible,
It's vast, a giant puzzle of thousands of years of history and philosophy,
Arguing on meanings,
Questions just keeps branching out and out and out. . .
But there is much in life I 'do accept and identify or hearken to, without worrying much on gaining absolute knowledge or certainty of understanding.
I'm not sure it's even that I want the Bible to be 'Right, for me to identify as one,
I just want for 'certainty on what everything in it 'IS and means,
But such is impossible.
And 'yet, I am 'Not bothered by my lack of certainty in 'other histories, of Earth, or America, of technology, of American law. . .
. . .
Hm, well, wouldn't matter 'anyhow, with my Atheism being 'now partly from my Materialism viewpoint of reality, (Doubts because of problems such as Being and Consciousness aside)
Also the problem of even if I believed, I think I still wouldn't be motivated to fully follow the Bible, love myself, my Ego, and Pleasures too much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Owen_T
Hm, still an Atheist, but I'll voice my thoughts some.
Well, for one, didn't Jesus not follow some or other laws exactly,
"Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath."
Mark 2:27
Don't Christians believe Jesus fulfilled the New Testament or place the New Testament above the Old Testament or something?
Hence why Christians don't follow all Old Testament laws or something. Like when Christians eat pigs.
Becomes a bit guidelines.
Besides what 'is the Bible?
Maybe a bunch of history, laws in different places and times of history and geography, poetry, wisdom, stories of the folly of man sometimes.
. . .
She doesn't 'have to marry him.
"If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he must still pay the bride-price for virgins."
Exodus 22:17
Women didn't have the rights they have today,
People didn't have the food, safety, infrastructure, medicine, so on, that we have today.
Harder for a non-virgin to get married,
Hard for a woman to be a spinster maybe.
Hard for the family if she get's pregnant maybe, even bigger burden.
Even if the girl is lame, blind, or afflicted with leprosy, he is forced to marry her and he may never take the initiative in divorcing her, as [the above verse continues]: "He may not send her away as long as he lives."
"But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die."
Deuteronomy 22:25
I don't speak or read Hebrew
"The word יְפַתֶּ֣ה used in Exodus 22:16 means entices or persuades.
You'll also notice the language used in 22:25 for rape ( וְהֶחֱזִֽיק) differs from the term used in 22:28 ( וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ). The language in 22:25 must denote force, while the language in 22:28 is softer. I don't disagree that the word וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ may connotate an element of force, but it is not assumed."
You'll also notice the language used in 22:25 for rape ( וְהֶחֱזִֽיק) differs from the term used in 22:28 ( וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ). The language in 22:25 must denote force, while the language in 22:28 is softer. I don't disagree that the word וּתְפָשָׂ֖הּ may connotate an element of force, but it is not assumed."
. . .
"Such laws were common around the world until the 1970s."
"Traditionally, the marriage of the perpetrator and the victim after the rape was often seen as an appropriate "resolution" of the situation. Among ancient cultures virginity was highly prized, and a woman who had been raped had little chance of marrying. These laws forced the rapist to provide for their victim."
"Scholars such as Susanne Scholz (2021) have pointed out that the meanings of words in the Hebrew Bible always depend on their context, and Bible translators or commentators often misinterpret terms, miss important nuances, or use euphemisms for sexual violence. Even in modern English, the verb 'to rape' does not necessarily always refer to sexual violence, but could be used metaphorically to describe being subjected to a deeply unpleasant yet non-sexual experience.[11] Similarly, a Hebrew verb such as עָנָה anah usually means 'to rape, to force/violate sexually', but in some non-sexual contexts is best translated as 'to oppress', 'to weaken', and so on. On the other hand, normally non-sexual words may sometimes describe something sexual; a verb such as עָשַׁק 'āšaq usually means 'to crush, to destroy, to oppress', but in one particular Bible verse (Isaiah 23:12) may actually mean 'to rape' in connection with the term 'virgin daughter', as the latter has a special sexual meaning.[12] Biblical Hebrew is also full of euphemisms and sexual slang that may be difficult for modern readers to understand. 'To lie with', 'to know', 'to come to', and 'to uncover the nakedness of' are such examples which, in particular contexts, mean 'to have sex'. Such phrases do not necessarily imply that this sex is forced by one person upon another, and could actually describe consensual sex, but especially if the context of the narrative adds forms of coercion (such as violence and intimidation) upon someone, or claims that this serves as a 'punishment', then 'to rape' becomes a plausible translation."
. . .
"Franca Viola (born 9 January 1948) is a Sicilian woman who became famous in the 1960s in Italy for refusing a "rehabilitating marriage" (Italian: matrimonio riparatore) to her rapist after being kidnapped, held hostage for over one week, and raped frequently. She is considered to be the first Italian woman who had been raped to publicly refuse marriage. She and her family successfully prosecuted the rapist. The trial had a wide resonance in Italy, as Viola's behavior clashed with traditional social conventions in Southern Italy, whereby a woman would lose her honour if she refused to marry the man to whom she had lost her virginity. Franca Viola became a symbol of the cultural progress and emancipation of women in post-war Italy.[1][2][3]"
. . .
"This also comes from a time where rape could also be defined where the woman can consent but her father does not, keep that in mind as well (Heck, rape can even mean him not being a Hebrew makes the act against the statute). Our laws still have a concept like this: statutory rape.
If we abstract a little from the concrete and cultural details and look at the more general precept around it, this law is analogous to our own laws, where the 30 skekls is analogous to how rapists can be obligated to give financial restitution to their victims, and the requirement to marry the victim and can never divorce her can be seen as similar to our own laws that can require a rapist to pay child support if a child results from the rape, that is, that the crime forces its perpetrator into a perpetual obligation to their victim. When interpreted like this, such a law should not seem very strange and disgusting to us."
Created:
Posted in:
I don't 'particularly pay attention to celebrities.
She's not as bad as some singers, I imagine.
Charles Manson - Invisible Tears
Plenty of Liberals in the country, I don't really care if one of them is famous, advocates or finances their beliefs.
I still don't 'like some Liberal policies, but eh,
She has some catchy songs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Shila
I suppose a wooden doll and a human corpse both exist,
But neither think, neither is a person.
A person is defined by thinking, I suppose.
Though most people need brain activity, to think a person 'is thinking.
A brain dead hospital patient,
A fetus before a synapse.
. . .
Various organisms think, I'd think, but I'm not sure they'd put into thoughts "I think, therefore I am."
Though some 'might not have thought so,
I've heard some people don't inner monologue much,
But I imagine they 'could if they bothered,
I'd imagine plants respond to stimuli,
But I'm doubtful they 'think and experience.
Even if some people rate them intelligent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmeAUa-eg9U Plants are more intelligent than we thought
But maybe it's just a different view/use of the word intelligent.
Mechanical alarm system made of metal can detect and by programming send alarm signals,
But I wouldn't say they're intelligent, intelligently designed maybe,
Respond advancly, but an AI in an RTS isn't intelligent, doesn't play intelligently, it's just a bunch of preprogramming, there's nothing 'experiencing.
@Self
'Could a plant think, if it developed some sort of planty brain, or some method not a brain yet supports same end function?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I'd agree that for 'us,
Much of existence would not exist, for us,
But I think it'd still exist.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
- "Does the past exist?"
- "Does the future exist?"
The past only exists as a record., something written down, a story, something that 'was.
The future does not exist yet, the future is what 'will be.
.
3. "Do abstractions exist?"
I don't use the word abstraction enough, to have an understanding of what an abstraction is.
. . . One definition on Google is "the quality of dealing with ideas rather than events."
While Wikipedia says,
"For example, abstracting a leather soccer ball to the more general idea of a ball selects only the information on general ball attributes and behavior, excluding but not eliminating the other phenomenal and cognitive characteristics of that particular ball."
. . . I think ideas in the brain exist as material.
This reminds me of Plato's 'Forms I think. Cupness.
. . . I think the 'possibility of a form doesn't exist until it does exist.
Though it waits in a sense to be discovered.
The vague idea of ballness or cupness, I don't think exists unless it's in a brain, or as a 'quality of an object.
It's a bit like asking if 'softness exists, I 'think?
A piece of gum exists and 'is soft, but 'soft isn't an object.
Softness is something we can experience, but we are experiencing a soft 'object, not softness.
When someone sits in a beanbag and says they never knew softness like this existed, they are talking of quality.
Sharpness isn't real, a sharp knife is real.
.
4. "Do thoughts exist?"
I think thoughts exist in the brain, so they are real in that sense,
If you asked me does the concept of a square exist?
I'd say things are square-ish, it's an idea.
.
5. "If something will never be observed, does it exist?"
Even if something could never be observed, I'd think it exists, we just won't ever know of it.
.
6. "If you have heard that something has been observed, but never observe it yourself, does it exist?"
It exists if it exists, regardless of belief, I'd think.
Though just because someone else says they saw something, doesn't mean I think they saw something.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Maybe existence is material, patterns, and laws.
Only the material 'exists, patterns describes the material, and laws describe limits and possibilities.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
Alright, read it.
I get the gist, and it makes fair points, but I lean towards basic utility for math myself,
Though I don't think it's bad to include fun math methods, art, history.
Created:
Posted in:
I am thankful for family and country.
I'd like to be better off than I am, but I've apparent choices to improve my situation, in the past and now.
But all considered, still well enough off, than many people's situations in the world, now and past.
Created:
Posted in:
I should really start reading more books again.
One book a month would be a good new year's resolution,
And more likely to be achieved by me than this last year's resolution.
Created:
Posted in:
In no particular order,
I've been reading one page a day from the Tao Te Ching recently until I finish it, started before I went to visit my Dad, but without internet access, I found it a harder read, so I stopped for a while.
I think it says a lot worth thinking on, which is part of the problem, often I need to look online to get other translations of contexts for words or culture.
Bit like a puzzle box, I've also enjoyed having someone online that I talk to it about, makes it easier, like a workout buddy.
The Bible, I haven't read it recently, but my mind pops to it now and then, from earlier readings. Some of its ways of looking at the world, and some of it's values. Also faith of one's ancestors (For a time) and all that.
Man's search for meaning by Viktor Frankl. I think has interesting views on humans and purpose that they live by and create.
I had a copy of Marcus Aurelius that I 'really liked but lost, still need to replace it. Couple other copies I've tried don't work for me.
But I liked it, advice giving, perspective on existence, though I don't agree with 'all of it. Too much Ego.
I've a copy of Mencius, that I've enjoyed reading a couple times. Much of the book being dialogue makes for easy reading. I enjoy a number of the perspectives and arguments. Ox Mountain for example has stuck in my head.
I've a copy of Confucious, I like much of it. Enjoy his use of the word gentleman, and encouragement of introspection.
Mission at Nuremberg by Tim Townsend. Lot of it is about the chaplain, bunch much does talk of Nuremberg defendants.
The Nuremberg Interviews by Leon Goldensohn and Nuremberg Diary by G.M. Gilbert.
I prefer Goldensohn, listens and take notes more than Gilbert. Gilbert seemed less objective and more judgy and patronizing in his views.
The Lucifer Effect by Phillip Zimbardo.
Arguably a flawed experiment, but still instructive, he also touches on subjects such as Abu Ghraib and human systems effects on people.
The Psychology of Dictatorship by Fathali M. Moghaddam.
Talked a lot about Iran, how some dictatorships can be formed, maintained, effects.
Discourses on Livy and the Prince, both by Niccolo Machiavelli.
Lot of interesting arguments on societies, governments, nations, people, politics, game theory.
Plato The Republic. Been a while since I read it, not sure I agreed with all of it, but I did find it engaging, got me to think.
The Book of Lord Shang. Had a lot of values dissonance for me in places, as well as arguments I disagreed with. Bit archaic read, but I found it worth reading and reflecting on. Agreed with some of it.
No Treason by Lysander Spooner. Had some interesting thoughts on Government and Freedom of individuals.
The Law by Frederic Bastiat. Lot of arguments against the State.
There are other books, but all of the above are on my personal re-reading list.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Swagnarok
I would worry that a significant portion of voters would change their representatives too often or that power could be invested in a dangerous representative too much or too long.
Trump for example.
A period of time where someone is in office, 'ideally I think,
Allows them a past history by which they can be gauged.
I 'suppose such a history could also be developed on a day to day basis,
But I worry if they get rotated out a lot, whether their history would have a lasting 'impact on voters.
I worry that it might end up 'even more a reality TV show.
Drama and pandering.
New Live Poll Lets Pundits Pander To Viewers In Real Time
Video included as a joke.
Still, I think it could be interesting if a voluntary society decided to 'test such an idea.
. . .
Part of the reason we elect people for a length of time,
Is so they have time to familiarize themself with the history and legal of their office (Ideally)
Sometimes they have access to 'hidden information, military, diplomatic, science.
We don't elect a new doctor everyday or a new baker.
Created:
-->
@befairbruh
The words and concepts are understandable,
Though I don't know enough history or economics to have strong opinions on the subject.
I just take to mean argument that allowing people to freely trade, results in goods being available,
And because of competition or wanting to appeal to market, they become affordable to more customers.
Large quantity of items such as clothes, phones, TVs, blankets, furniture, enters the market,
Making for higher quality of life, than if free market did not exist, is the argument I think.
. . . Debatable point is whether we are richer because of free market, or because of technology and societal advance and accumulation over time.
But I do 'see the argument,
If only government products existed, maybe we'd see less variety of product types, or variations of certain products.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
That's why some preppers also prep communities of people like minded as themselves.
Still, fair point.
If the attackers don't have any food or shelter,
Then perhaps their siege will be of a limited duration.
Additionally one can use one's food, home, and guns as bargaining chip, to grow one's own gang.
While outside gangs may just have their guns.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
That's why some food preppers also prep guns.
Created:
-->
@befairbruh
The railroad link was me talking to myself, and trying to remember and find a link.
Possibly it never existed,
Sometimes I post extraneous thoughts, which I admit harms communication,
But eh.
Hm, well I think this is about my limit of economic debate on this subject.
You haven't convinced me, but maybe that's because I'm still digesting your arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
Does the DART search function for debates and forums currently not work for anyone else?
. . .
I wonder what new hit board games are being created over time,
Haven't paid much attention since I was a kid.
I wonder if some thousand years later,
They'll talk of games like Monopoly, the way 'we talk of ancient board games. Ancient relative to our current time.
I wonder what Earth might be like in 1000 years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RemyBrown
I don't much like the idea of time travel to the past.
Partially because I don't believe in it,
And partially I dislike how it threatens my identity.
Hm, but you say (assuming somehow you don't mess up the timeline)
If it causes no holocaust #6, then it probably 'does mess up the timeline?
Maybe a better question would be if you had an advanced ability somehow, whether through magic or science fiction,
To predict the future,
Would you kill a current baby, to stop a predicted Holocaust?
Time travel to the past to kill Hitler, is implying baby Hitler is already acted/will act and thus is morally responsible?
Suppose the option is instead to kill innocent Jewish kid who went on to be a very good saint like person during the Holocaust, saved many lives during and after.
Suppose this Jewish boy bullied Hitler as a child or something, and this was the cause of Hitlers weird Jew fixation.
Hm, I am reminded of Moon Knight,
And of a Doctor Who episode with young Davros.
Previous thoughts of mine.
Created:
-->
@befairbruh
Bread
Of bread, I mean there was a famine in France, and the common people were riled up about it,
I think it was 'one of the causes of the French Revolution.
"Let them eat cake"
Is a fictional invention I have heard, but it emphasizes how the lower class can react when they have so little, yet the upper class seems to have so much.
Companies
Freedom 'does seem good to me,
And it 'sounds you support checks and balances for 'immediate harm or companies restricting freedom.
But I'm not sure you have checks and balances for preventing companies from growing too powerful for those laws.
Allowing a single individual or company to amass too much wealth for instance,
It seems more ideal to me, to prevent them from amassing enough wealth to easily change laws or influence voters.
. . . 'And get away with it.
While I agree a company store 'can be fair, in practice it can result in 16 tons.
I think many businesses create unfair prices because they want money, and because there being no government regulation, they 'can.
"It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country." - Franklin Roosevelt
'Ideally the company would be fair,
'Ideally the workers would just leave, but there are always desperate, poor, uneducated people.
People don't think,
I shall leave and allow my family to starve to death for my principles.
"In Mexico, during the Porfiriato period (late 1800 to early 1900), the "tiendas de raya" (company stores) were a prominent symbol of labor and peasant exploitation. These stores, operated by the owners of haciendas or factories, sold essential items to workers, often at inflated prices and typically paying with vouchers instead of cash. This kept workers in a continuous debt cycle to the hacienda or company, binding them almost like slaves to the land or industrial work without the possibility of escaping poverty."
. . .
Saying that monopolies only exist because of government regulation, doesn't sound right to me.
Though I think government can 'cause monopolies, or prop up monopolies, (With bailout as an example)
. . . The less laws, the less restrictions for a company to act in underhanded ways to acquire full control of their market and competition.
. . .
I 'do agree capitalism 'can be about the creation of new wealth,
But I think unrestricted it will often try to seize that new wealth and much of the old wealth for itself.
. . . Where does that new wealth go?
Often I suspect into new people, and into the company,
By this I mean, yes there is new wealth, and it creates more society,
But that doesn't necessarily mean society is 'richer, just bigger.
And while this can have the 'side effect at times of the people becoming richer,
I think some companies and people have bottomless pits for stomachs.
How rich does one need to be before being satisfied?
And yet. . . There are many rich individuals and companies who are 'not satisfied, who 'continue their unfair prices and wages.
. . .
For the companies it is being soulless husks, they often 'exist to make more money for the faceless shareholders,
CEO doesn't stay in position by moral actions, so much as I made money perhaps.
. . .
It's what pisses people off about some game companies,
Lootboxes and horse armor, bah.
Still at least game companies don't have a hold of my wallet or food.
. . .
And one 'does see game companies fail over time, when they fail to satisfy.
But it isn't always fast,
And people stomachs are not tied to their products.
. . .
England
America was able to expand west though, after we bought Louisiana from the French, no longer had to worry about England edicts not to expand into the natives land, and after we had killed some native powers.
England had that British Empire for a time, I'm doubtful they were economic slouches.
Monopolies
You may have explained why monopolies cannot exist without government regulation.
But it didn't sink in for me,
'Partially because I am not well read on this subject, but still have vague memories of readings and intuitions that keep me doubtful that monopolies cannot easily exist without government regulation.
I 'do think they can come about 'from government regulation, whether intention or bad policy.
Weeds are going to grow regardless,
But one can have more or less weeds than one would have naturally, by their gardening.
Market Regulated by Demand
Hm, a fair point.
Still, I'm not sure that stops companies from effecting demand.
But I am not educated enough to change my current views,
One could argue I could change my view to neutral, but not my style.
I still have past impressions, vague memories, and intuitions that keep me on my current view.
Side Thoughts.
Of food, I am not familiar enough with the subject, to have strong views on whether there would be more food in the world with more or less, or no government regulation.
Hm where's that link to railroads? No not this one.
I 'do agree with you on some points,
And 'do think the government can over regulate, and create excessive barriers of entry at times.
Lot of hoops to jump through, for people trying to start a business or profession.
One leans at times to letting people make their own choices, good or bad,
If they want to hire a doctor that receives 0/10 reviews, and is a quack, their choice some argue.
Hm, earlier when talking of lead in food or baby toys,
I meant I would have government not allow the sale of such,
Not that I would have government allow people to buy leaded food or baby toys.
Just for myself if I ever forget about particulars of this conversation, as I worry my statement was vague, and allows interpretation that I would be fine with government just having companies say their toys and food is leaded.
Created:
-->
@befairbruh
Having a government, 'sounds like having regulation to me.
Even if a company said there was lead in their baby toys or in food, I think some people would still buy them,
People still buy cigarettes,
I'd rather have government regulate this to a degree.
French Nobility, can be seen as an example of individuals amassing wealth, and power.
One of the reasons for the French Revolution, was 'bread.
Sometimes the only food available is in the company store, at unfair prices.
I'd rather government be allowed to regulate this.
The desert example only needs to highlight the flaw in unregulated economy.
And people's 'response to such.
Without regulations, people are able to create monopolies, and I realize I am sounding a broken record here, perhaps I lack understanding.
. . .
But I see a person able to buy all the land, all the means of production, and then enforce unfair trade.
'Unless they are regulated.
. . .
I am not convinced America outgrew England through 'Free 'Market.
England is smaller, and gave up it's Empire.
Even if we had kept to England's ways, I suspect frontiers and expansion make for growth.
I am not familiar enough with the USSR to have opinions on why it collapsed.
I think monopolies can exist without government regulation.
It sounds a simple concept to me,
Someone acquires a significant portion of a resource/trade/service and leverages it.
No regulation means companies are free to direct the flow of wealth as 'they like.
Just because the workers don't want to buy from the company store, doesn't mean they are not going to buy from the company store.
Created:
-->
@befairbruh
If there is no food, but what is in the sellers stash,
Then I can either buy food or starve,
That's less of a choice to me than paying taxes.
Though still a choice.
If I crash on a desert island, and one of the other passengers brought with him and owns a ton of food, that he refuses to share unless we write out contracts where we go into eternal debt,
Then **** him,
I'd rather start a revolution, and redistribute his wealth.
People use their apparent Free Will all the time to not pay taxes, or to pay taxes.
I 'think uniqueness 'is a driving force of price,
Scarcity, I 'think it is called.
I think companies 'enjoy scarcity, if they think they can make more money with it being limited.
. . .
A company is motivated to discourage it's competition by buying them out, (Monopolies),
So they can keep prices high,
And unreflecting of the true value of an item.
I'm not bothered by rich people funding a cure for cancer,
Or being the only ones to buy it when it is too expensive to create easily.
Same with houses, medicine, and education.
. . .
I 'do mind someone trying to buy all the houses, jacking up the prices on medicine, or education.
I accept physicians and educators setting their own prices,
But not their having a monopoly, for example by owning the patent to a medicine.
. . . . . .
. . . . . . Wouldn't the idea of property 'require government legislation, government control of the market?
. . .
Your system 'sounds a bit more like anarchy.
Created:
-->
@befairbruh
I'm not sure what you consider 'restrictions,
When you argue against restricting the Free Market.
Do you have examples?
Free Will doesn't 'matter so much 'all the time,
A medieval King may say to the peasants, you have the free will to pay your taxes or not, but if you choose not, off with your head.
People often choose the taxes.
I imagine much of the 'point of a monopoly, is to remove any other options besides oneself.
If some company has the cure to cancer, but is only willing to sell it to millionaires and people willing to sign themselves as slaves,
I'd rather have an option to legally force them to lower their price,
Than to guillotine their CEO.
. . .
A focus on Capitalism,
Allows material profit,
But not moral profit.
Allows 'personal profit,
Less so 'community profit.
. . .
A company owns a deed to land,
Without any constrictions,
It is free to dump it's waste,
To make it's products shoddy.
Because the CEO can move to their beach house,
Because the average consumer just wants to carry their groceries home, they don't care about the plastic bag that harms the environment.
This is the purpose of 'government, and the people, of restrictions.
I think people may care more as jury, than in personal actions.
Asbestos houses, leaded gas, rickety buildings, buildings that are fire hazards.
One ought not just leave people to their own devices without oversight.
If one wants society to function well.
Maybe.
Created:
-->
@zedvictor4
Well, the Communists come 'off to many as a bunch of tyrants.
Admittedly there are 'explanations for their actions in history.
Lot of capitalist countries in a sense, already own the means of production though,
They break up monopolies, bail out companies and banks, set rules the companies must follow,
They're just hands off in many areas owners.
Though some might say the companies own the country, , , well, maybe it's both and neither.
But easier for a government to dissolve a company than a company a government I think.
. . .
There's some system in government, that I forget,
Where they give everyone money, not a 'lot, but minimum for paying rent, eating, small amount for recreation.
. . .
It doesn't really 'hurt a system to allow people to go above and beyond, to work.
One might argue a system would still include capitalism,
Want a yacht instead of a rowboat, have to work.
But that seems more a growth 'upon a system, than the system itself.
With few enough people, and/or enough technology and material wealth to maintain the engine.
I'd 'imagine Communism could work,
Works well enough for small Communes I hear.
Created:
-->
@befairbruh
What are other systems exist then?
It sounds a bit as though you are saying capitalism is the only system.
Though it might be that you are saying it is better for capitalism to be less restricted than more restricted.
Or that because of how widespread capitalism is, it is more relevant than other systems.
I'm not sure what you would 'accept as other systems though.
Created:
-->
@befairbruh
I'm not sure what you mean by Free Market Capitalism,
I don't know much about economics.
I get that the American market might be more free in practice, than say some Communist countries,
But America still regulates the market,
Sets laws against price gouging, sets safety requirements, minimum wage, employee rights, orders farmers what and how much of a crop they can grow, in war orders industries to do this or that.
But in the end, it's Regulated Market Capitalism I would 'think?
Though one might point to some earlier years in American history when workers had less rights,
But Government was 'still often involved, sometimes on the side of the capitalists.
. . .
"In economics, a free market is an economic system in which the prices of goods and services are determined by supply and demand expressed by sellers and buyers. Such markets, as modeled, operate without the intervention of government or any other external authority."
"Proponents of the free market as a normative ideal contrast it with a regulated market, in which a government intervenes in supply and demand by means of various methods such as taxes or regulations. In an idealized free market economy, prices for goods and services are set solely by the bids and offers of the participants."
"Laissez-faire (/ˌlɛseɪˈfɛər/ LESS-ay-FAIR; or /lɑːˌsɛzˈfɛ.jər/, from French: laissez faire [lɛse fɛːʁ] ⓘ, lit. 'let do') is a type of economic system in which transactions between private groups of people are free from any form of economic interventionism (such as subsidies or regulations). "
"A command economy or planned economy is where the big decisions are made at the center by the government. [1] In an economic system the main decisions are, for example, allocating resources like labour, capital and minerals. Prices, too, are controlled. In a command economy, these decisions are taken by a central body, usually the government."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Heh, have to keep that toilet lid down, when one has pets.
Created:
-->
@borz_kriffle
I agree in part.
But if one easily labels others an 'other, and enemy how can peace come about?
What is there but the 'next war with one's enemy?
Of course todays enemies can be tomorrows friends,
. . . Can be hard to do sometimes though, with how much people can hold onto anger from conflict, dehumanizations, or reliance on war.
On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”
. . .
Do countries need land forever?
Perhaps it would be better if countries and populations practiced restraint in breeding and in use of resources.
. . . Course, as I noted in a different thread, I think populations effect military and economic power,
I have a hard time imagining countries intentionally lowering their own populations,
Then again, China did that for a time with it's one-child policy, after encouraging people to have more kids in initial plans to use their population boom against other countries, in war I 'think.
I don't think people should 'ignore violence, or the potential for violence,
But while precautions ought be taken, I think.
Treating a person as the enemy, can mean a total lack of respect, care, or dignity.
. . . How can people change for the better, if they are forever labeled enemy?
Forever treated as enemy, something hated, reviled?
Some people become all the more monstrous or one's enemy, by such actions.
People can treat their enemies well, or with respect I suppose,
But I still might argue that is treating them as 'humans, people, as what they 'are, rather than purely as 'enemy.
Created: